***** 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


/ 

/ 

Si 


THE  DISPUTED  PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION  OF  1876 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


m 

J 


THE  DISPUTED  PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION  OF  1876 


THE  HAYES-T1LDEN 

DISPUTED  PRESIDENTIAL 

ELECTION  OF  1 876 


BY 


PAUL  LELAND  HAWORTH 

Lecturer  ia  History,  Columbia  Uaiversity 


CLEVELAND 

THE  BURROWS  BROTHERS  COMPANY 
MCMVI 


COPYRIGHT,  1906 

BY 
THE  BURROWS  BROTHERS  COMPANY 


ICPUBLICAN  PRINTING  CO. 
CKDAM  RAPIDS,    IOWA 


To  My  Sister  R.  H. 
Whose  Self-sacrifice  is  not  Forgotten 


919/1  17 


CONTENTS 

Preface ix 

I.     The  Republican  Dynasty  in  Danger  .  i 
II.     The    Republicans   Cast  About  for  a 

Leader            .....  10 

III.  A  Democratic  Moses           ...  26 

IV.  The  Centennial  Campaign           .         .  36 
V.     The  Election — Republican  Hope  after 

Despair           .....  45 

VI.     The  Contest  in  Florida  57 
VII.     Bulldozers  and  Returning  Officers  in 

Louisiana        .....  81 

VIII.     Rifle-Clubs  in  the  Palmetto  State       .  122 

IX.     The  Ineligible  Elector  in  Oregon         .  157 

X.     Compromise  or  Civil  War?         .         .  168 

XL     Eight  to  Seven 220 

XII.     The  Adjustment  in  the  South     .         .  284 

XIII.  The  Potter  Committee  and  the  Cipher 

Dispatches 305 

XIV.  Legal  Aspects  and  the  Equities           .  329 

Appendix 345 

Index 351 


PREFACE 

Thirty  years  have  now  elapsed  since  the  beginning 
of  the  presidential  campaign  which  culminated  in  the 
most  remarkable  electoral  controversy  in  the  history 
of  popular  government.  As  yet,  however,  no  adequate 
account  of  that  controversy  has  been  published.  It 
has  seemed  to  me  that  there  is  some  need  for  such  an 
account,  and  this  book  is  the  result  of  my  effort, 
successful  or  otherwise,  to  supply  it. 

The  book  is  based  in  large  measure  upon  a  collection 
of  more  than  twenty  thousand  pages  of  congressional 
material,  consisting  of  debates  in  Congress,  of  evidence 
gathered  by  various  investigating  committees,  and  of 
the  proceedings  before  the  electoral  commission.  This 
collection  constitutes  perhaps  the  most  extensive  and 
exhaustive  one  upon  any  subject  of  equal  importance 
in  American  history,  and  the  labor  involved  in  exam 
ining  and  sifting  it  has  been  rendered  all  the  greater 
by  the  fact  that  so  much  of  the  evidence  contained  in 
it  is  untrustworthy.  As  the  reference  notes  will  show, 
I  have,  in  addition,  drawn  material  from  a  great  variety 
of  other  sources.  I  have,  in  fact,  spared  no  pains  to 
make  my  investigation  as  complete  as  possible.  Upon 
most  of  the  matters  which  are  really  vital  I  have,  I 
believe,  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  essential  facts ;  but 


x  Preface 

I  feel  constrained  to  admit  that  I  have  not  succeeded 
in  penetrating  the  veil  which  surrounds  some  others. 
These  last  are  matters  which  will,  in  all  probability, 
always  remain  secrets,  for  the  simple  reason  that  those 
actors  who  could  tell  the  truth  concerning  them  will 
never  do  so.  I  may  remark  in  passing  that  I  have 
brought  to  light  much  that  has  never  before  been 
published,  and  that  I  have  also  learned  many  other 
interesting,  though  usually  not  very  important  things, 
which  cannot  be  published  because  told  to  me  under 
pledge  of  secrecy.  In  all  cases,  however,  I  have  been 
able  to  make  use  of  such  facts  in  drawing  conclusions. 

It  may  be  worth  while  for  me  to  add  that  in  inter 
preting  the  evidence  regarding  the  situation  in  the 
contested  states  of  Louisiana,  Florida,  and  South 
Carolina  I  have  been  greatly  aided  by  experience 
gained  some  years  ago  while  making  an  extended 
investigation  in  certain  southern  states  of  the  workings 
of  negro  suffrage  under  present  day  conditions.  In 
fact,  I  may  say  that  without  the  insight  thus  gained 
my  task  would  have  been  well-nigh  a  hopeless  one. 

There  remains  only  the  pleasant  duty  of  acknowl 
edging  my  obligations  to  the  many  persons  who  have 
assisted  me  in  the  work.  To  Hon.  Carl  Schurz,  Hon. 
John  Bigelow,  Col.  A.  K.  McClure,  Hon.  John  Goode, 
Hon.  William  Dudley  Foulke,  Dr.  Charles  R.  Wil 
liams,  and  Mr.  Yates  Snowden  of  the  Charleston  News 
and  Courier;  to  Col.  Webb  C.  Hayes,  who  allowed  me 
to  see  his  father's  papers  and  who  read  the  entire 
manuscript;  tq  Mr.  Edward  Cary  of  the  New  York 


Preface  xi 

Times,  who  furnished  me  with  information  and  read 
a  portion  of  the  manuscript;  to  Professor  John  R. 
Ficklen  and  Mr.  Benjamin  Rice  Foreman,  who  read 
the  chapter  on  Louisiana;  to  Hon.  W.  E.  Chandler, 
who  furnished  me  with  much  material  and  who  read 
several  of  the  chapters;  to  Mr.  Joseph  M.  Rogers, 
who  had  himself  intended  to  write  a  book  on  the  sub 
ject  but  retired  in  my  favor  and  with  rare  generosity 
gave  me  the  results  of  his  investigations  and  read  the 
more  important  chapters  —  to  these  gentlemen  and  to 
many  others  I  owe  a  debt  which  I  fear  I  shall  never  be 
able  to  repay.  Nor  must  I  forget  to  mention  the  many 
kindnesses  shown  me  by  my  publisher,  Mr.  Charles 
W.  Burrows,  and  the  assistance  rendered  me  by  my 
father  and  iby  my  wife  in  correcting  the  manuscript. 
Above  all,  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  William  A. 
Durming,  leading  authority  in  this  period  of  our 
history,  for  reading  both  the  manuscript  and  the  proof 
and  thereby  helping  me  to  avoid  many  errors. 

In  justice  to  some  of  the  persons  named  it  should, 
however,  be  added  that  I  alone  am  responsible  for 
statements  of  fact  and  for  conclusions.  In  many 
cases,  perhaps  unwisely,  I  have  disregarded  their 
suggestions. 

PAUL  LEXAND  HAWORTH. 

Columbia  University. 


THE  DISPUTED  PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION 

• 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  REPUBLICAN  DYNASTY   IN  DANGER 

The  year  1876  was  the  most  notable  of  the  period 

in  American  history  betweenthe  close  of  tne  war  of 

Secession  and  the  beginning  of  the  war  with  Spain. 
It  wasT~the  year  in  which  occurred  the  last  o?  our 
important  Indian  outbreaks  —  a  conflict  made  sadly 
memorable  by  the  massacre  of  Custer  and  his  troopers 
on  the  Little  Big  Horn.  It  was  the  year  which  marked 
jthe  one  hundredth  anniversary  of  our  independence  — 
an  occasion  fitly  celebrated  by  the  great  Centennial 
Exposition  at  Philadelphia.  It  was  also  the  year  of  an 
election  which  resulted  in  a  strange  controversy  that 
put  our  institutions  to  one  of  the  severest  tests  they 
have  ever  been  called  upon  to  endure. 

The  political  outlook  prior  to  that  election  was  in 
some  respects  an  unusual  one.     For  the  first  time  since 


2  The  Hayes-Tilden 

it  had  come  into  power  there  was  real  likelihood  that 
the  Republican  party  would  be  unable  to  elect  its 
candidate  for  the  Presidency.  Successful  in  1860  by 
grace  of  the  lack  of  unity  among  its  opponents, 
it  had  in  1864  merged  itself  in  that  Union  party 
which  gave  Lincoln  his  second  term,  and  four 
years  later,  having  resumed  its  independent  status, 
it  had  been  led  to  another  overwhelming  vic 
tory  by  the  military  hero  who  had  ended  the 
war.  In  the  new  President's  first  administration  had 
occurred  a  division  in  the  party  fold.  The  Liberal 
Republicans,  dissatisfied  with  the  conduct  of  affairs 
and  despairing  of  getting  their  views  adopted  by  the 
party  leaders,  had  in  1872  held  a  separate  convention  at 
Cincinnati  and  had  nominated  Horace  Greeley  of  New 
York  and  B.  Gratz  Brown  of  Missouri.  Thereupon 
the  Democrats,  seeing  no  hope  of  success  with  candi 
dates  chosen  from  among  themselves,  had,  despite  the 
fact  that  Greeley  had  been  one  of  the  highest  of  the 
high  priests  of  Abolitionism-,  indorsed  the  Liberal 
Republican  candidates  and  platform.  But  this  unnat 
ural  alliance  had  wholly  failed  to  avert  a  complete 
triumph  of  Radicalism ;  out  of  the  349  electoral  votes 
counted  by  Congress  for  President,  General  Grant  had 
received  286,  while  the  63  remaining  had  been  divided 
(Greeley  having  died  before  the  electoral  colleges  met) 
among  B.  Gratz  Brown,  Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  Charles 
J.  Jenkins  of  Georgia,  and  David  Davis  of  Illinois.  x 

i  Cong.  Globe,  42d  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  p.  1305.  Three  Georgia 
rotes  which  had  been  cast  for  Greeley  were  not  counted,  and  all 
the  votes  of  Louisiana  and  Arkansas  were  excluded. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  3 

Rendered  reckless  by  the  seeming  finality  of  their 
victory,  the  Radical  leaders  had  fallen  into  the  pleasant 
belief  that  the  question  of  dispensing  the  loaves  and 
fishes  of  political  patronage  was  settled  forever  and 
that  it  was  wholly  unnecessary  to  carry  through  meas 
ures  of  reform  which  the  Liberal  Republicans  had 
demanded  and  which  many  far-sighted  men  who  had 
remained  within  the  party  desired.  But  there  had  soon 
been  a  rude  awakening.  The  panic  of  1873,  tne  dis 
satisfaction  due  to  the  unsettled  state  of  the  monetary 
system,  the  bad  condition  of  affairs  in  the  South,  the 
Credit  Mobilier  exposures,  the  so-called  Salary  Grab, 
the  Sanborn  Contract,  and  other  scandals  —  all  these 
things  had  worked  mightily  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
party  in  power.  *  The  result  had  been  the  great  "Tidal 
Wave"  of  1874.  Out  of  thirty-five  states  in  which 
elections  were  held  twenty-three  had  gone  Democratic ; 
even  such  Republican  states  as  Wisconsin,  Ohio,  Penn 
sylvania,  and  Massachusetts  had  arrayed  themselves 
in  the  Democratic  column;  and  only  a  comparative 
handful  of  Republicans  had  been  returned  to  the 
House.  2 

In  the  new  Congress,  it  is  true,  the  Democratic 
members  had  not  greatly  distinguished  themselves  for 
wisdom  or  for  political  sagacity;3  but  the  party  had 

1  These  conclusions  are  based  upon  the  flies  of  The  Nation, 
Harper's  Weekly,  and  of  the  New  York  World,  Times,  and  Tri 
bune.     See  also  Stanwood,  History  of  Presidential  Elections,  4tii 
ed.,  p.  302  ;  Poulke,  Life  of  Morton,  II,  pp.  344-352  ;  Hoar,  Auto 
biography   of   Seventy   Years.    I,   pp.    305-369. 

2  McPherson,      Handbook  of  Politics  for  1876,   p.   255. 
3.  See  Harper's  Weekly,  XX,  p.   112. 


4  The  Hayes-TilJen 

been  favored  by  the  almost  clock-like  regularity  with 
which  scandals  continued  to  reveal  themselves,  so  that, 
although  financial  conditions  were  becoming  better  and 
the  "Tidal  Wave"  was  now  running  much  less  strong, 
the  Democratic  leaders  were  at>le  to  look  forward  to 
the  approaching  election  with  at  least  as  much  confi 
dence  as  the  Republicans. 

The  chief  count  that  could  be  brought  against  the 
party  in  power  was  maladministration.  That  the 
government  was  in  a  deplorable  condition  no  dispas 
sionate  student  of  history  will  venture  to  deny.  Nor 
are  the  chief  causes  difficult  to  find.  The  nation  had 
but  recently  emerged  from  the  trying  ordeal  of  the 
greatest  civil  war  known  to  history.  That  war  had 
left  many  troublesome  problems,  some  of  which  time 
alone  could  fully  solve.  It  had  also  necessitated  a 
tremendous  increase  in  the  revenues  and  expenditures 
of  the  national  government.  From  March  4,  1789,  to 
June  30,  1861,  the  entire  net  "ordinary  expenditures" 
had  amounted  in  round  numbers  to  but  $1,580,000,000, 
as  against  the  enormous  sum  of  $5,200,000,000  in  the 
fourteen  years  from  June  30,  1861,  to  June  30,  1875. 
Furthermore,  the  number  of  civil  employees  of  the 
government  had  increased  from  about  44,000  under 
Buchanan  to  more  than  100,000  under  Grant. 1  In  the 
morally  unhealthy  atmosphere  which  inevitably  follows 


1  These  comparisons  were  made  in  the  Democratic  Campaign 
Text  Book,  pp.  747-748.  The  figures  are  from  the  Report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  1875  and  from  reports  of  the 
various  departments.  The  "gross  expenditures"  were,  of  course, 
far  larger. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  5 

a  resort  to  arms,  and  amidst  such  favorable  conditions 
as  those  just  described,  it  was  but  natural  that  the 
Spoils  System  should  produce  its  most  noxious 
growth,  and  that  political  morality  should  reach  per 
haps  the  lowest  ebb  in  our  entire  history.  x 

The  administrative  demoralization  of  the  country 
was,  it  must  be  conceded,  due  in  part  also  to  the 
personality  of  President  Grant.  Like  many  a  suc 
cessful  soldier  before  him,  Grant  was  by  no  means  a 
finished  statesman.  Prior  to  his  inauguration  he  had 
never  held  a  civil  office,  and  he  did  not  clearly  under 
stand  the  workings  of  our  political  system.  Starting 
out  with  the  assumption  that  the  Presidency  was  a  sort 
of  personal  possession  given  him  by  the  people  to 
manage  as  he  thought  proper,  he  had,  with  the  best 
intentions  in  the  world,  entirely  ignored  the  party 
leaders  in  choosing  his  first  cabinet.  This  independent 
policy  had  soon  proved  a  failure,  and  he  had  been 
brought  to  the  necessity  of  securing  some  support. 
In  the  contest  to  gain  control  of  him  which  followed, 
the  Radicals  —  Butler  in  Massachusetts,  Conkling  in 
New  York,  Cameron  in  Pennsylvania,  Patterson  in 
South  Carolina,  Morton  in  Indiana,  and  so  on  —  had 
triumphed  over  the  Liberals  and  had  become  the  Pres*- 


1  For  a  different  view  see  Hoar,  I,  pp.  309-311,  and  Foulke,  II. 
p.  410.  The  Republicans  were  able  to  show  that  the  rate  of 
defalcation  per  $1,000  under  Grant  was  considerably  lower  than 
under  any  previous  President.  This  arg-ument  failed  to  take  into 
account  the  fact  that  most  of  the  corruption  at  this  time  was  not 
In  the  form  of  direct  stealing  from  the  government.  Furthermore, 
there  were  under  Grant  many  officials  each  of  whom  handled 
in  the  course  of  a  year  more  money  than  was  spent  in  that 
length  of  time  by  the  entire  government  under  Washington. 

2 


6  The  Hayes-Tilden 

idential  advisers  and  the  dispensers  of  patronage.  Thus 
the  man  who  had  begun  by  ignoring  the  politicians 
had  in  the  end  allowed  himself  to  fall  entirely  into 
their  hands.  The  outcome  was  rendered  all  the  more 
disastrous  because  the  President,  although  a  keen 
judge  of  military  capacity,  had  no  skill  in  choosing 
political  subordinates  and  advisers.  A  thoroughly 
honest  man  himself,  he  was  unable  to  detect  dishonesty 
in  others.  His  confidence  was  frequently  abused  by 
pretended  friends,  who  brought  him  into  disrepute,  but 
whom,  with  misguided  fidelity,  he  was  unwilling  "to 
desert  under  fire."  In  many  ways,  to  be  sure,  his  two 
administrations  were  by  no  means  failures.  Under 
him  our  disputes  with  England  were  peaceably  and 
honorably  settled,  the  national  debt  was  greatly 
reduced,  the  Resumption  Act  was  passed,  and  the 
South  was  kept  as  tranquil  perhaps  as  a  section  which 
had  so  recently  undergone  such  a  complete  social  and 
political  upheaval  could  be  kept.  Probably  no  other 
man  then  living  could  have  filled  the  Presidential 
chair  as  well  as  he;  yet  the  fact  remained  that  the 
administration  was  pervaded  with  a  lamentable  demor 
alization  which  increased  rather  than  diminished. 
Disclosures  of  wrong-doing  followed  each  other  with 
such  astounding  rapidity  that  inefficiency  and  fraud 
were  suspected  even  where  they  did  not  exist.  x 


1  For  estimates  of  Grant  which  agree  in  the  main  with  this 
see  Garland,  Life  of  Grant,  pp.  385-449 ;  Cox,  Three  Decades 
of  Federal  Legislation,  pp.  672-673  ;  McCulloch,  Men  and  Meas 
ures  of  Half  a  Century,  pp.  355-357  ;  Andrews,  The  United  States 
in  Our  Own  Times,  pp.  23  et  seq. ;  and  John  Sherman's  Recol 
lections,  I,  pp.  446-449,  474-475.  Some  excellent  estimates  of  him 


Disputed  Election  of  l8?6  7 

As  the  time  for  the  campaign  of  1876  drew  near  it 
was  generally  recognized  that  in  Republican  misgov- 
ernment  the  Democrats  would  find  their  best  oppor 
tunity  for  attack.  The  wisest  policy  for  them  would 
be  to  drop  the  Southern  issue  and  fight  the  battle  on 
that  of  "Grant's  maladministration,"  Said  the  New 
York  Herald  on  April  i,  1876: 

"Let  the  party  trace  every  stream  of  corruption 
which  now  pollutes  the  country  to  its  source,  and  call 
upon  the  country  to  rise  and  cleanse  the  source.  Let  the 
leaders  begin  the  campaign  on  the  violation  of  the 
Constitution  involved  in  the  appointment  of  staff 
officers  and  not  statesmen  to  the  Cabinet.  Let  them 
show  how  the  moral  sense  of  the  nation  was  degraded 
by  the  selection  of  worthless  relations  and  whiskey- 
drinking  cronies  to  high  offices  here  and  abroad.  Let 
them  show  how  the  Senate  degraded  itself  by  becoming 
a  sharer  in  the  plunder  and  patronage  of  the  Executive. 
Let  them  show  how  the  country  was  parcelled  out  like 
the  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,  every  state  with 
a  Senatorial  proconsul  —  Conkling  in  New  York, 
Cameron  in  Pennsylvania,  Patterson  in  South  Carolina, 
and  so  on  until  the  country,  so  far  as  the  patronage 
is  concerned,  is  under  the  dominion  of  an  oligarchy 
which  only  opposes  the  President  when  he  names  men 
for  office  like  Hoar  and  Dana,  supporting  him  in  his 
selection  of  a  Billings  or  a  Delano.  Let  them  show 
how  investigations  in  the  House  were  made  impossible 
so  long  as  the  brothers  of  members  were  allowed  to 
hold  trade  posts  and  rob  Indians  and  soldiers.  Let 


were  given  in  the  newspapers  published  at  the  time  of  his  death. 
For  his  apology  for  his  administrations  see  his  last  message  to 
Congress. 


8  The  Hayes-Tilden 

them  show  how  scandal  after  scandal  supervened  until 
we  had  a  Secretary  of  War  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate  as 
a  confessed  robber  and  a  Secretary  of  the  Navy  rapidly 
on  his  way  thither  for  having  used  a  million  of  dollars 
to  sustain  a  sinking  banking  house  in  London."  1 

The  indictment  that  could  be  drawn  was  certainly  a 
strong  one.  The  Republican  party,  rendered  reckless 
by  the  possession  of  too  much  power,  had  been  weighed 
in  the  balance  and  had  been  found  wanting.  In  the 
minds  of  many  a  sincere  patriot,  proud  of  the  record 
of  a  hundred  years  but  humiliated  by  the  fact  that  the 
centennial  of  the  nation's  birth  must  witness  so  much 
corruption  in  high  places,  there  inevitably  arose  a 
desire  for  a  political  change. 

Yet  there  was  one  consideration  among  other  less 
influential  ones  which  might  perhaps  save  the  party  in 
power  from  merited  rebuke.  Bad  as  that  party  had 
shown  itself  of  late,  there  nevertheless  existed  a  grave 
doubt  whether  its  opponent,  in  the  light  of  the  record 
of  the  past,  was  any  more  worthy  of  confidence. 2 
Rightly  or  wrongly,  men  had  not  yet  forgotten  that 
not  more  than  eleven  years  before  a  large  section  of 
the  Democratic  party  had  stood  beneath  the  Stars  and 
Bars  in  battle  array  against  the  Union ;  that  another 
section  of  that  party  had  been  worse  than  lukewarm  in 
support  of  the  government  which  they  now  sought  to 
control.  With  more  truth  than  poetry  it  was  still  said 
that  "not  every  Democrat  was  a  Rebel,  but  every  Rebel 


1   This,  of  course,  Is  overdrawn. 

3  See,  for  example,  Harper's  Weekly,  XIX,  pp.  90,  170,  210. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  9 

was  a  Democrat."  Would  it  be  safe  to  trust  the 
nation's  affairs  with  men  many  of  whom  had  once 
raised  their  hands  against  her  life  ?  Would  it  not,  after 
all,  be  better  to  keep  in  power  a  party  which,  whatever 
its  faults,  had  always  stood  unflinchingly  for  the 
preservation  of  the  Union?  Upon  the  answers  given 
to  these  questions  seemed  to  depend  the  result  of  the 
forthcoming  election. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  REPUBLICANS  CAST  ABOUT  FOR  A  LEADER 

With  such  a  political  outlook  it  was  almost  inevitable 
that  there  should  be  a  readjustment  in  the  Republican 
party.  The  Radicals,  discredited  and  somewhat  chas 
tened  by  defeat,  began  to  show  themselves  much  more 
amenable  to  advice ;  it  was  apparent  that  the  moderate 
element,  whose  watchword  was  "reform  within  the 
party,"  1  would  play  a  much  more  important  part  than 
hitherto.  This  state  of  affairs  made  it  easier  for 
many  Liberals  who  were  alarmed  at  the  inflationist 
tendencies  displayed  by  the  Democrats  and  who  ap 
proved  the  Republican  stand  on  the  Resumption  Act 
to  drift  back  into  their  former  party. 

For  the  first  time  since  1860  there  was  real  uncer 
tainty  as  to  who  would  be  chosen  to  lead  the  Republican 
hosts.  There  was,  of  course,  much  talk  about  a  third 
term.  The  newspapers,  and  especially  the  New  York 
Herald,  took  up  the  subject;  and  during  1875  a  great 
deal  was  said  about  "dynasties,"  "dictatorships," 
"Caesarism,"  and  so  on.  In  the  spring  of  1875  the 
Pennsylvania  Republican  state  convention,  moved  by 

1  For  an  article  on  this  subject  see  Harper's  Weekly,  XIX, 
p.  274. 


The  Disputed  Election  of  l8j6         1 1 

this  outcry,  passed  a  resolution  against  a  third  term. 
Thereupon  President  Grant  wrote  to  General  Harry 
White,  chairman  of  the  convention,  as  follows :  "Now 
for  the  third  term.  I  do  not  want  it  any  more  than  I 
did  the  first  ...  I  am  not,  nor  have  I  ever  been  a 
candidate  for  a  renomination.  I  would  not  accept  a 
nomination  if  it  were  tendered,  unless  it  should  come 
under  such  circumstances  as  to  make  it  an  imperative 
duty  —  circumstances  not  likely  to  arise."  The  letter 
was  regarded  by  many  as  a  "declination  with  a  string 
to  it ;"  people  remarked  that  in  the  past,  at  Ft.  Donelson 
and  elsewhere,  Grant  had  never  shown  any  inability 
to  make  his  meaning  unmistakable. 1  In  consequence, 
the  discussion  of  his  availability  was  kept  up  until  the 
following  December,  when  an  effectual  quietus  was 
put  to  it  by  the  passage  in  the  -House  of  Representa 
tives,  by  a  vote  of  233  to  18,  of  a  resolution  declaring 
that  any  attempt  to  depart  from  the  precedent  estab 
lished  by  Washington  and  other  Presidents  "would  be 
unwise,  unpatriotic,  and  fraught  with  peril  to  our  free 
institutions."  2 

With  General  Grant  out  of  the  way,  the  field  was 
open  for  other  candidates.  Of  these  the  most  talked 
about  were  James  G.  Elaine  of  Maine,  Roscoe  Conkling 
of  New  York,  Benjamin  H.  Bristow  of  Kentucky,  and 
Oliver  P.  Morton  of  Indiana.  In  addition  there  were 
some  "favorite  sons,"  among  whom  were  John  F. 

1  For  an  account  of  this  matter  and  a  copy  of  the  letter  see 
Garland's   Grant,   pp.    436-432  ;   also   Harper's   Weekly,  XIX,   pp. 
474,  494,  496,  and  499. 

2  Record,  p.  228. 


12  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Hartranft  of  Pennsylvania,  Marshall  Jewell  of  Con 
necticut,  and  Rutherford  B.  Hayes  of  Ohio. 

To  outward  appearances,  Mr.  Elaine  seemed  to  have 
the  best  chance  of  securing  the  coveted  nomination. 
He  possessed  a  magnetic  personality,  and  had  attracted 
much  attention  as  Representative  and  Speaker.  In  the 
Congress  then  in  session  he  had  kept  himself  in  the 
public  eye  by  systematically  baiting  the  Southern 
members  and  drawing  from  them  disloyal  utterances 
which  could  be  used  by  their  opponents  as  party 
capital. l  Mr.  Elaine's  friends  were,  in  general,  those 
men  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the  Administration  yet 
were  not  reformers. 2  He  was,  of  course,  bitterly 
opposed  by  Senator  Conkling,  whom  on  a  memorable 
occasion  he  had  forever  alienated  by  comparing  him 
to  a  turkey  gobbler.  3  Mr.  Elaine  was  also  regarded 
with  but  little  favor  by  the  reformers;  and  his  avail 
ability  in  their  eyes  was  vastly  lessened  by  the  disclo 
sure  not  long  before  the  convention  met  of  the  cele 
brated  "Mulligan  letters"  which  purported  to  make 
some  uncomfortable  revelations  regarding  his  alleged 
improper  relations  with  the  affairs  of  the  Little  Rock 
and  Ft.  Smith  Railroad.  4  Nevertheless  he  was  sure 
of  the  support  of  Maine  and  of  enough  votes  in  other 
states  to  give  him  a  decided  lead  over  any  of  the  other 
candidates. 


1  The   Nation,   XXIII,    p.    173 ;    also    Johnson,    An   American 
Statesman,  ch.  6. 

2  Hoar's  Autobiography,   I,   p.   378. 

3  See   reference   to    this    in    The   Nation,   XXV,    p.    373 ;    also 
Stanwood's  Elaine,  pp    66-72. 

4  Hoar,  I,   379. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  13 

Senator  Conkling  would  naturally  have  the  sup 
port  of  practically  all  the  delegates  from  his  own  state 
of  New  York, l  and  was  generally  believed  to  be  the 
candidate  favored  by  the  Administration.  This  latter 
fact  was,  however,  a  source  of  weakness  rather  than  of 
strength;  for  the  influence  of  the  Administration  was 
at  a  very  low  ebb  indeed,  and  one  of  the  leading 
Republican  weeklies  declared  that  "the  only  man  whom 
the  Republicans  can  elect  is  some  man  whom  the 
Administration  coterie  would  strongly  oppose,  because 
his  career  and  character  would  be  the  guarantee  of  a 
total  change  in  the  tone  of  the  Administration."  2 

Senator  Morton  was  still  another  candidate  who  was 
not  favorably  looked  upon  by  the  reformers.  While 
a  man  of  great  ability  as  a  leader,  he  was  a  Radical  of 
the  most  intense  type,  and  was  credited  with  having 
defended  the  civil  service  as  "the  best  upon  the 
planet." 3  His  nomination  was  opposed  in  the  East 
because  he  was  suspected  of  being  a  "soft  money 
man ;"  this  suspicion  was  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  his 
organ,  the  Indianapolis  Journal,  was  demanding  the 
repeal  of  the  Resumption  Act.  In  addition,  his  chances 
were  greatly  lessened  by  the  fact  that  he  was 
so  infirm  physically  that  he  was  obliged  to  use 
crutches.  Ke  was,  however,  loyally  supported  by 
Indiana,  and  was  so  popular  with  the  negroes  of  the 
South  that  a  national  convention  of  that  race  at  Nash 
ville  on  April  ^th  showed  itself  almost  unanimous  in 

1  See  his  Life  by  A.  R.  Conkling,  p.  504. 

2  Harper's  Weekly,  XIX,  p.  1028.  3  Ibid,  XX,  p.  443. 


14  The  Hayes-Tilden 

his  favor.  An  ungrounded  attack  begun  about  the 
same  time  by  the  New  York  World  upon  his  personal 
honesty  reacted  strongly  in  his  favor,  for  it  gave  him 
an  opportunity  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate  to  bring  once 
more  before  the  country  his  splendid  services  as  "War 
Governor"  of  Indiana. 1 

Of  all  the  candidates,  Mr.  Bristow  was  apparently 
the  man  best  fitted  to  lead  a  campaign  whose  watch 
word  should  be  "Reform  within  the  Party."  As  secre 
tary  of  the  treasury  he  had  conducted  a  ruthless 
warfare  against  the  Whiskey  Ring;  had  not  hesitated 
to  secure  the  conviction  of  personal  friends  of  the 
President;  and  had  even  ventured  to  bring  about  the 
indictment  and  trial  of  Orville  E.  Babcock,  the  Pres 
ident's  private  secretary. 2  By  his  activity  he  had, 
however,  gained  the  ill-will  of  the  President  and  of 
the  Radical  official  coterie  and  had  been  blackballed 
by  the  New  York  Union  League  Club.  3  His  chances 
were  also  weakened  by  the  fact  that  he  had  not  long 
been  known  to  the  country  at  large.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  was  regarded  with  favor  by  the  reformers 
and  was  supported  by  a  large  part  of  the  more  reputa 
ble  Republican  press.  4 

Of  the  two  other  candidates  most  frequently  men- 

1  For  a  good  account  of  Morton's  candidacy  see  Foulke,   II, 
pp.  387-396.     The  attack  was  made  in  the  World  of  April  29th; 
Morton  replied  in  the  Senate  on  May  5th. 

2  For  an  account  of  Bristow's  fight  against  the  Whiskey  Ring 
f?ee  an  article  by  H.  V.  Boynton  in  the  North  American  Review 
for  October,   1876,  p.  280. 

3  Harper's  Weekly,  XX,  p.  418;  New  York  Times,  May  12th. 

4  For  his  candidacy  see  Harper's  Weekly,  XX,  pp.   182    202 
382,  418.     The  Nation,  XXII,  p.  344,  and  Stanwood,  Elaine,  p.  178.' 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  15 

tioned,  Hartranft  had  the  support  of  the  great  state  of 
Pennsylvania;  but  his  name  appears  to  have  been  put 
forward  less  in  hope  of  his  securing  the  nomination 
than  of  keeping  the  Pennsylvania  delegation  in  hand 
until  it  could  be  profitably  thrown  to  some  other  man.  a 
Hayes,  the  other  candidate,  had  been  indorsed  by  Ohio. 
He  was  then  serving  a  third  term  as  governor  of  that 
state,  and  in  his  various  contests  for  that  office  had 
defeated  three  prominent  Democrats  —  William  Allen, 
George  H.  Pendleton,  and  Allen  G.  Thurman.  He 
was  sound  on  the  money  question,  had  a  good  war 
record,  was  without  any  important  enemies,  but  was 
not  much  known  outside  his  own  state.  Few  persons 
considered  it  likely  that  he  would  be  nominated.  2 

A  month  before  the  time  for  the  convention  at  which 
the  hopes  of  all  but  one  of  these  candidates  must  be 
blasted  there  occurred  in  New  York  City  an  event  of 
considerable  political  significance.  In  response  to  a 
call  issued  by  Carl  Schurz,  Theodore  Woolsey,  Horace 
White,  William  Cullen  Bryant,  and  Alexander  H.  Bul 
lock,  about  two  hundred  gentlemen  met  in  the  Fifth 
Avenue  Hotel  to  confer  upon  the  political  situation. 
Among  those  present,  in  addition  to  the  persons  who 
had  issued  the  call,  were  David  A.  Wells,  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  Mark  Hopkins,  Dorman  B.  Eaton, 

1  Elaine,  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  II,  p.  568.     The  attend 
ant  circumstances  bear  out  the  theory. 

2  McClure,  in  his  Recollections  of  Half  a  Century,  p.  99,  says 
that  if  there  had  been  a  belief  that  the  nomination  would  go  to 
Ohio,  Sherman  would  have  been  put  forward.     For  Hayes's  can 
didacy   see   Harper's    Weekly,   XX,    pp.    122    and    162 ;    Times   of 
April    9th;. and   Herald   of   April    21st.     For   an   account   of   his 
career  see  the  campaign  Life  by  William  Dean  Howells. 


1 6  The  Hayes-Til  den 

Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson,  Ir'arke  Godwin.  K.  C. 
Lodge,  and  Professor  Seelye. 

This  Fifth  Avenue  Conference,  as  it  was  called, 
continued  in  session  during  the  I5th  and  i6th  of  May, 
and,  in  addition  to  adopting  a  resolution  in  favor  of 
civil  service  reform,  issued  an  elaborate  Address  to  the 
American  People.  This  paper,  which  was  from  the 
able  pen  of  Mr.  Schurz,  was  in  the  nature  of  a  warning 
to  both  parties.  After  deploring  the  unprecedented 
"prevalence  of  corrupt  practices  in  our  national  life," 
the  address  continued:  "We  therefore  declare  .  .  . 
that  at  the  coming  Presidential  election  we  shall  sup 
port  no  candidate  who  in  public  position  ever 'counten 
anced  corrupt  practices  or  combinations,  or  impeded 
their  exposure  and  punishment";  no  candidate  "who 
has  failed  to  use  his  opportunities  in  exposing  abuses 
coming  within  the  reach  of  his  observation,  but  for 
personal  reasons  and  party  ends  has  permitted  them 
to  fester  on ;  .  .  .no  candidate,  however  conspicuous 
his  position  or  brilliant  his  ability,  in  whom  the  im 
pulses  of  the  party  manager  have  shown  themselves 
predominant  over  those  of  the  reformer ;"  no  candidate 
about  whom  there  could  be  room  for  question  as  to 
his  being  "really  the  man  to  carry  through  a  thorough 
going  reform  in  the  government." 

Although  the  Radical  Republicans  and  also  many 
Democrats  endeavored  to  belittle  the  importance  of  the 
conference  by  calling  those  in  attendance  "soreheads" 
and  "sentimentalists,"  its  action  was  generally  felt  to 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  17 

be  very  significant. 1  The  Address  showed,  for  one 
thing,  that  the  independents  would  not  accept  a 
candidate  like  Elaine,  Conkling,  or  Morton,  and  would 
support  only  a  genuine  reformer.  The  general  senti 
ment  of  the  conference  had,  in  fact,  been  favorable 
to  Mr.  Bristow ;  and  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
members,  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  had  openly 
stated  that  in  case  Mr.  Bristow  was  not  named,  he 
would  use  his  influence  in  behalf  of  the  expected 
Democratic  nominee,  Mr.  Tilden.  2 

On  June  I4th,  a  month  after  the  conference  was 
held,  the  Republican  convention  met  at  Cincinnati. 
The  meeting  place  was  regarded  as  especially  favor 
able  to  Bristow,  for  the  people  were  more  enthusiastic 
for  him  than  they  were  for  Hayes,  and  the  city  was 
also  easy  of  access  to  Kentuckians.  Numerous  as  were 
Bristow's  supporters,  however,  they  were,  in  the  esti 
mation  of  The  Nation's  correspondent,  decidedly  un 
practical.  "Looking  at  them,  and  seeing  the  thor 
oughly  Visionary'  way  in  which  they  tried  to  push 
the  fortunes  of  their  candidate  by  appeals  to  the  desire 
of  the  convention  for  honest  government,  and  to  the 
detestation  of  the  delegates  for  all  trickery  and  under 
hand  proceedings,  it  was  impossible  for  the  most 
genuine  reformer  not  to  regret  that  they  were  too 


1  Harper's  Weekly  for  June  3d. 

2  In    preparing   this   account   of   the   conference   I   have   con 
sulted  the  files  of  the  New  York  Times,  Herald,  World  and  Sun; 
of   The   Nation   and   Harper's    Weekly;   and   of   the   Indianapolis 
News,  Journal  and   Sentinel.      Information   has   also   been   sup 
plied  me  by  Mr.  Schurz. 


l8  The  Hayes-Tilden 

moral  to  use  other  arguments." x  Mr.  Bristow's 
friends  were  not  the  only  ones  in  evidence :  Hoosier 
supporters  of  Morton  came  "in  trains  and  steamboats 
chartered  for  the  purpose  'as  thick  as  mosquitoes  in 
blackberry  time,'  " 2  and  "shouters"  for  most  of  the 
other  candidates  were  present  in  goodly  numbers.  Al 
most  every  candidate  had  some  colored  supporters,  but 
Morton  was  especially  favored  in  this  respect.  Black 
orators  descanting  upon  the  merits  of  their  candidate 
were  numerous  and  voluble;  their  "speeches  on  the 
whole  were  very  nearly  as  good  as  the  white  speeches, 
and  infinitely  more  amusing,  partly  from  internal 
causes  and  partly  because  they  were  so  universally 
recognized  as  a  piece  of  buncombe."  3 

One  of  the  most  talked  of  subjects  at  the  convention 
was  the  physical  condition  of  one  of  the  candidates. 
On  Sunday,  the  nth,  three  days  before  the  convention 
was  called  to  order,  Mr.  Elaine,  while  on  his  way  to 
one  of  the  Washington  churches,  had  been  so  badly 
overcome  by  the  heat  that  he  had  fallen  at  the  church 
door,  and  even  after  being  removed  to  his  home  had 
been  in  such  a  state  that  for  many  hours  it  was  doubt 
ful  whether  he  would  survive.  His  opponents  natur 
ally  made  the  most  possible  out  of  his  illness,  and  "had 
no  hesitation  in  predicting  that  he  would  be  dead  within 
a  week,  or,  if  not  dead,  utterly  incapable  of  using  his 
mind  or  bearing  any  strain."  * 

1  The  Nation,   XXII,    p.    393. 

2  Foulke,   p.   397. 

3  The  Nation,  XXII,   p.   393. 

4  The  Nation,  XXII,  p.  392. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  19 

Although  the  effect  of  this  reasoning  was  consider 
ably  diminished  by  the  reception  of  a  reassuring  tele 
gram  from  Mr.  Elaine,  an  episode  growing  out  of  his 
illness  did  have  an  important  effect  upon  the  ultimate 
action  of  the  convention.  With  a  friend,  Mr.  Bristow 
called  upon  his  sick  rival  to  extend  his  sympathy; 
but  as  Mr.  Blaine  had  come  to  believe  that  some  of 
the  attacks  made  upon  him  were  instigated  by  Bris 
tow,  the  visit  had  unfortunate  results.  While  Bristow 
and  his  friend  were  at  the  house  "an  occurrence  took 
place  which  satisfied  them  both  that  the  feeling  against 
Bristow  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Blaine  and  his  near  friends 
was  exceedingly  strong  and  implacable.  The  story 
was  at  once  telegraphed  in  cipher  to  Mr.  Bristow's 
chief  manager  at  Cincinnati,"  and  later  had,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  late  Senator  Hoar,  a  decisive  influence 
upon  the  course  of  events. 1 

On  Wednesday,  the  I4th,  the  convention  was  called 
to  order,  and  was  organized  with  Edward  McPherson 
of  Pennsylvania  as  permanent  chairman.  2  After  cer 
tain  other  preliminary  business  3  on  this  and  the  fol 
lowing  day,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Platform 


1  Hoar's   Autobiography,    I,    pp.    380-381. 

2  The   Blaine   forces   controlled  the  organization   of  the  con 
vention.     From    Alabama    the    Spencer    delegation,    favorable    to 
Morton,    were   excluded,    and   the   Haralson    delegation,    some   of 
whom  supported  Blaine,  were  admitted. — Foulke,  p.  400  ;  McPher 
son,   p.   210 ;    The  Nation,  XXII,  p.   390  ;    Times  and  Herald  for 
June  15th  and  16th. 

3  A  feature  of  the  first  session  was  the  reading  by  Mr.  G.  W. 
Curtis  of  an  address  issued  some  time  before  by  the  New  York 
Reform   Club   in   favor   of   resumption   and   civil    service    reform 
and   criticising    the    Administration   severely.     The    address    was 
regarded  as  a  hard  blow  at  Mr.  Conkling.— The  Nation,  XXII,  p. 
392  ;   Times  of  15th. 


2O  The  Hayes-Tilden 

and  Resolutions  was  heard.  When  the  report  had 
been  read,  Edward  L,.  Pierce  of  Massachusetts  moved 
to  strike  out  the  eleventh  resolution  which  called  for 
a  congressional  investigation  into  the  effect  of  the  im 
migration  and  importation  of  Mongolians;  but  after 
debate  the  proposal  was  rejected,  215  to  532. 1 

Edmund  J.  Davis  of  Texas  then  moved  to  strike 
out  the  fourth  resolution,  which  was  to  the  effect  that 
the  promise  made  in  the  first  act  signed  by  President 
Grant  pledging  the  nation  "to  make  provision  at  the 
earliest  practicable  period  for  the  redemption  of  the 
United  States  notes  in  coin"  ought  to  be  "fulfilled  by 
a  continuous  and  steady  progress  to  specie  payment." 
Mr.  Davis  proposed  in  its  stead  a  declaration  "that  it 
is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  for  carrying  out 
the  act  known  as  the  Resumption  Act  of  Congress, 
to  the  end  that  the  resumption  of  specie  payments 
may  not  be  longer  delayed."  But  the  Resumption  Act 
was  not  popular  in  the  West,  and  the  party  leaders 
ideemed  it  better  politics  not  to  go  on  record  as  either 
favoring  or  opposing  it.  Consequently  the  amend 
ment,  after  a  brief  debate,  was  rejected.  2 

In  other  respects,  also,  the  platform  was  a  temporiz 
ing  and  rather  weak  document.  It  'contained,  of 
course,  the  usual  not  undeserved  eulogy  upon  the  Re 
publican  party  for  its  work  in  purging  the  land  of 
slavery.  It  asserted  that  the  United  States  is  a  "na 
tion,  not  a  league ;"  contained  a  mild  and  half-hearted 


1  Times,  June  16th. 

2  McPherson,  p.  211  ;  Times,  Herald,  and  World  for  June  16th. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  21 

resolution  against  the  spoils  system ;  declared  in  favor 
of  protection,  and  against  polygamy  and  public  aid  to 
parochial  schools ;  denounced  the  Democratic  party  as 
"being  the  same  in  character  and  spirit  as  when  it 
sympathized  with  treason ;"  and  asserted  that  "the 
National  Administration  merits  commendation  for  its 
honorable  work  in  the  management  of  domestic  and 
foreign  affairs,  and  President  Grant  deserves  the  con 
tinued  hearty  gratitude  of  the  American  people  for 
his  patriotism  and  his  eminent  services,  in  war  and 
in  peace."  It  also  promised  that  all  public  officers 
should  be  held  "to  a  rigid  responsibility"  and  "that 
the  prosecution  and  punishment  of  all  who  betray 
official  trusts  shall-  be  swift,  thorough,  and  unsparing;" 
but  it  nowhere  contained  a  frank  recognition  of  the 
shameful  condition  of  the  public  service  or  any  pro 
mise  of  its  thorough  reform. l 

The  work  of  platform-building  having  been  com 
pleted,  the  convention  was  ready  for  the  more  excit 
ing  work  of  selecting  the  nominee.  Marshall  Jewell 
of  Connecticut  was  named  by  Stephen  W.  Kellogg; 
Morton,  by  Richard  W.  Thompson.  Bristow  was 
nominated  by  General  John  M.  Harlan  of  Kentucky, 
and  the  nomination  was  seconded  by  George  William 
Curtis  of  New  York,  and  by  Richard  H.  Dana  of  Mas 
sachusetts.  Conkling's  name  was  presented  by  Stew 
art  L.  Woodford ;  that  of  Hayes,  by  E.  F.  Noyes ;  and 
that  of  Hartranft,  bv  Linn  Bartholomew.  The  most 


1   The  platform  is  given  in  McPherson,  p.   210,  and  in   Stan- 
wood,   History  of  Presidential   Elections,   p.   315. 
3 


22  The  Hayes-Tilden 

striking  speech  was  that  made  by  Col.  Robert  G.  Inger- 
soll  in  nominating  Blaine ;  in  the  course  of  it  he  made 
the  famous  comparison  of  his  candidate  to  a  "plumed 
knight"  —  an  appellation  which  continued  to  be  used 
by  Mr.  Elaine's  many  devoted  followers  down  to  the 
time  of  his  death. 1  At  the  conclusion  of  the  speech- 
making  the  tide  in  favor  of  Mr.  Blaine  was  running 
so  high  that  his  opponents  deemed  it  wise  to  move 
an  adjournment.  In  all  probability  the  motion  would 
have  been  voted  down  had  not  the  discovery  been 
made  that  the  lighting  equipment  of  the  building  was 
out  of  order.  It  has  since  been  charged  that  the 
gas  supply  had  been  clandestinely  cut  off  for  the  ex 
press  purpose  of  forcing  an  adjournment.  The  man 
who  planned  and  carried  into  execution  this  manoeuver 
was  Robert  W.  Mackay.  Mr.  Mackay's  roommate 
was  Matthew  Stanley  Quay.2 

When  the  convention  reassembled  at  ten  next  morn 
ing,  the  voting  was  at  last  begun.  On  the  first  four 
ballots  the  total  number  of  votes  cast  varied  from 
754  to  755  ;  378  thus  were  necessary  for  a  choice.  Mr. 
Blaine  received  votes  varying  from  285  on  the  first 
to  292  on  the  fourth.  On  the  first  two  ballots  Morton 
stood  second,  with  125  and  120  votes,  but  was  then 
passed  by  Bristow,  who,  on  the  fourth  ballot,  received 


1  The   effect  of  this  speech  was  partly  destroyed  by  one   of 
the   seconders,   a   Georgia  negro,   who   caused   much   laughter  by 
referring  to  Curtis  as  "the  poet  from  New  York,"  and  to  R.   H. 
Dana    as    "our    minister    to    England,"    and    by    making    himself 
otherwise   ridiculous. 

2  McClure,  Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them,  p.  243; 
personal  statement  by  the  same  author. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  23 

126.  Conkling  started  with  99  and  dropped  to  84; 
Hartranft  rose  from  58  to  71 ;  and  Hayes  from  61 
to  68.  The  strenuous  support  given  to  Mr.  Elaine 
had  now  thoroughly  convinced  the  supporters  of  the 
other  candidates  that  he  was  the  real  enemy ;  and  many 
of  the  party  leaders,  knowing  that  a  bolt  would  take 
place  should  he  be  the  nominee,  began  to  cast  about 
for  some  candidate  in  whose  favor  a  combination 
could  be  made.  "The  reformers  had  convinced 
Conkling's  followers  that  he  could  not  be  nominated, 
and  Morton  was  out  of  the  question  as  well  as  Hart 
ranft.  This  left  Bristow  and  Hayes  as  the  only  pos 
sible  anti-Blaine  nominees."  1 

On  the  fifth  ballot  began  a  decided  movement  to 
ward  Hayes.  When  Michigan  was  called,  a  veteran 
Republican,  William  A.  Howard,  who  had  been  pres 
ent  at  the  birth  of  the  party  "Under  the  Oaks"  thirty- 
two  years  before,  hobbled  out  into  the  aisle,  and 
in  a  voice  tremulous  with  emotion  said  that  there 
was  one  candidate  before  the  convention  who  had 
already  defeated  three  Democratic  aspirants  for 
the  Presidency,  —  Allen  G.  Thurman,  George  H.  Pen- 
dleton,  and  William  Allen,  —  and  that  as  he  seemed 
to  have  a  habit  of  defeating  distinguished  Democrats, 
it  would  be  the  part  of  wisdom  to  give  him  an  oppor 
tunity  to  defeat  yet  another  one.  The  speaker  then 
announced  that  Michigan  cast  all  of  her  22  votes  for 
Rutherford  B.  Hayes.  This  announcement  was  re 
ceived  with  tremendous  applause ;  and  when  the  re- 

1   The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.  392. 


24  The  Hayes-Til  den 

suit  of  the  ballot  was  announced,  it  was  found  that  the 
vote  for  Hayes  had  increased  from  68  to  104. l 

On  the  sixth  ballot,  however,  a  Elaine  stampede  be 
gan.  North  Carolina,  which  on  the  previous  ballot 
had  voted  for  Hayes,  now  came  over  to  Elaine;  the 
Pennsylvania  delegation,  in  which  hitherto  the  unit 
rule  had  been  enforced,  gave  him  several  votes ;  South 
Carolina  swung  into  line  for  him ;  and  in  all  he  received 
308  votes,  or  within  70  of  the  nomination.  On  the 
same  ballot  Hayes  had  gained  only  9;  Morton  had 
received  85 ;  Bristow  in  ;  Conkling  81 ;  and  Hartranft 

50. 

It  was  now  clear  that  the  seventh  ballot  would  be 
the  decisive  one.  Mr.  Elaine's  followers  were  confi 
dent  and  even  jubilant.  The  vote  was  taken  amid 
great  excitement  and  confusion.  From  the  first  few 
states  Mr.  Elaine  gained  many  votes ;  and  it  was  ap 
parent  that  if  he  continued  to  gain  at  the  same  rate 
he  would  be  nominated.  When  Indiana  was  called, 
Mr.  Will  Cumback,  the  chairman  of  the  delegation, 
withdrew  the  name  of  Morton  and  cast  25  votes  for 
Hayes  and  5  for  Bristow.  The  crucial  moment  came 
when  Kentucky  was  reached.  It  was  now  evident 
that  Bristow  could  not  be  nominated,  and  his  name 
was  withdrawn.  Then,  moved  by  the  knowledge  of 
Elaine's  hostility  to  Bristow,  the  Kentucky  delegates 
voted  unanimously  for  Hayes.  2  They  were  followed 
by  most  of  the  remaining  delegates  who  had  opposed 

1  New  York  Times,  June  17th;  Johnson,  An  American  States 
man,  p.  275. 

2  Hoar,  I,  p.  382. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  2$ 

Elaine,  with  the  result  that  Hayes  received  384  votes 
and  the  nomination. 1 

The  convention  then  proceeded  to  the  less  exciting 
work  of  choosing  a  Vice-Presidential  nominee.  As 
usual  in  such  cases,  this  work  was  quickly  accom 
plished.  Messrs.  William  A.  Wheeler  of  New  York, 
Stewart  L.  Woodford  of  New  York,  Marshall  Jewell 
of  Connecticut,  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen  of  New 
Jersey,  and  Joseph  R.  Hawley  of  Connecticut,  were  put 
in  nomination ;  but  before  the  first  ballot  had  been 
completed  it  was  apparent  that  Mr.  Wheeler  had  re 
ceived  a  majority;  the  other  candidates  were  with 
drawn,  and  he  was  declared  the  unanimous  choice  of 
the  convention.  2 

After  transacting  some  further  business  the  con 
vention,  having  done  all  that  lay  within  its  power  to 
insure  Republican  success  in  the  coming  election,  ad 
journed  sine  die.  3 

1  The  following  table  (see  McPherson,  p.  212)  gives  the  vote 
in  detail: 

1st         2d         3d  4th  5th  6th       7th 

Hayes    61          64          67  68  104  113        384 

Elaine 285        296        293  292  286  308        351 

Morton    125        120        113  108  95  85            0 

Bristow     113        114        121  126  114  111          21 

Conkling 99          93          90  84  ,  82  81            0 

Hartranft    5S          63          68  71  69  50            0 

Jewell    11      (withdrawn) 

Wm.  A.  Wheeler 3            32  2  2  2            0 

Elihu  B.  Washburne.        Oil  50 


Whole  No.  of  votes ..    755        754        755        754        755        755        756 
Necessary  to  choice ..    378        378        378        378        378        378        379 

2  McPherson,  p.   212. 

3  Except  where  otherwise  stated  my  account  of  the  conven 
tion  is  based  upon  files  of  the  New  York  Times,  World,  Herald, 
Tribune,  and  of  the  Indianapolis  Journal  and  Sentinel. 


CHAPTER  III 

A   DEMOCRATIC    MOSES 

The  Democrats  approached  the  campaign  of  1876 
in  a  more  sanguine  mood  than  did  their  opponents. 
Flushed  by  their  triumph  in  the  congressional  elec 
tions  of  '74,  encouraged  by  the  fact  that  all  but  three 
of  the  Southern  states  had  at  last  been  "redeemed" 
from  carpet-bag  rule,  and  reassured  by  the  continuous 
damaging  exposures  which  threw  discredit  upon  the 
Administration,  the  opposition,  for  the  first  time  in 
twenty  years,  felt  fairly  confident  that  the  next  Pres 
ident  would  be  a  Democrat. 

The  question  as  to  who  should  be  the  Democratic 
standard  bearer  in  the  expected  triumph  was  not  such 
an  open  one  as  in  the  camp  of  their  opponents.  The 
signs  of  the  times  pointed  to  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  govern 
or  of  New  York,  as  the  probable  leader.  Neverthe 
less,  there  were  several  other  aspirants  for  the  honor. 
The  most  talked  of  were  Senator  Thomas  F.  Bayard 
of  Delaware,  Senator  Allen  G.  Thurman  of  Ohio,  Gen 
eral  Winfield  Scott  Hancock  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Gov 
ernor  Thomas  A.  Hendricks  of  Indiana.  Senator  Bay 
ard  had  distinguished  himself  as  one  of  the  ablest  Dem 
ocrats  in  the  Senate,  and  was  acceptable  to  the  South 


The  Disputed  Election  of  1876         27 

because  he  had  opposed  the  coercion  of  that  section, 
but  his  chances  as  an  "available"  candidate  were 
greatly  impaired  by  the  smallness  of  the  state  from 
which  he  came.1  Senator  Thurman  had  proved 
himself  one  of  the  ablest  constitutional  lawyers  of  the 
day,  and  had  led  the  Democratic  lawyers  in  many  a 
hard  fought  parliamentary  battle.  Being  a  "hard 
money"  man,  he  was  regarded  with  favor  in  the  East, 
but  the  "soft  money"  tide  was  running  high  among  the 
Ohio  Democrats  just  then,  and  ultimately  the  candidate 
put  forward  by  the  party  in  that  state  was  a  "soft 
money"  man,  ex-Governor  Allen.  2  General  Hancock, 
four  years  later  to  be  the  party's  candidate  against 
Garfield,  had  been  a  strong  competitor  for  the  nom 
ination  in  the  convention  of  1868.  He  was  popular 
with  the  war  veterans,  and  was  looked  upon  as  a  pos 
sible  "dark  horse,"  though  he  would  go  into  the  con 
vention  with  but  little  support  outside  his  own  state 
of  Pennsylvania.  3  A  candidate  whose  fortunes  were 
pushed  with  greater  vigor  than  those  of  any  other  yet 
discussed  was  Governor  Hendricks.  As  congressman, 
senator,  and  governor,  that  gentleman  had  been  prom 
inent  in  state  and  national  politics  for  many  years,  had 
been  one  of  the  leading  candidates  in  the  convention 
which  nominated  Seymour,  and  had  received  most  of 
the  votes  of  the  Democratic  electors  in  1872  after  the 

1  World,  April   29th,  June  18th  and  25th.     See  also  Times  of 
April  1st,  June  23d  and  26th. 

2  Harper's    Weekly   for   June   3 ;    Times    and    World   for   May 
18th;  The  Nation,  XXII,  p.  327. 

3  See  Life   by   Goodrich,   pp.    303-306 ;    Times   of   June   23d. 


2 8  The  Hayes-Tilden 

death  of  Greeley.  He  had  an  enthusiastic  following  in 
Indiana  and  some  other  states  of  the  Middle  West,  but 
was  regarded  in  the  East  as  a  "trimmer"  and  as  unsafe 
on  the  money  question. 1 

Of  all  the  men  mentioned  for  the  nomination,  how 
ever,  Governor  Samuel  J.  Tilden  of  New  York  ap 
peared  to  be  the  logical  candidate  to  lead  in  a  "reform" 
campaign.  Mr.  Tilden's  rise  to  national  prominence 
had  been  rapid,  but  his  experience  in  local  politics 
had  been  long  and  varied.  At  an  early  age  he 
had  shown  great  precocity  in  political  matters,  and  had 
become  intimately  associated  with  that  prince  of  poli 
ticians,  Martin  Van  Buren.  He  had  followed  his 
leader  in  the  Barnburners'  revolt  of  1848,  in  1855 
had  been  the  candidate  of  the  "soft  shell'  Democrats 
for  attorney-general,  but  in  time  had  once  more  found 
himself  within  the  regular  party  fold.  Mr.  Tilden 
had  won  great  distinction  as  a  lawyer,  and  through 
,his  success  as  a  railroad  "reorganizer"  had  managed 
to  amass  a  fortune  of  several  millions.  Although  his 
stand  during  the  Rebellion  had  not  been  exactly  what 
lovers  of  the  Union  could  have  wished,  this  had  not 
prevented  him  from  receiving  in  1866  the  chairmanship 
of  the  Democratic  State  Committee  in  New  York. 
In  this  capacity  he  had  been  more  or  less  associated 
with  unscrupulous  leaders  of  the  party  in  New  York 

T~My  information  Tipon  Hendricks's  candidacy  has  been 
largely  obtained  from  files  of  the  Indianapolis  Sentinel.  See  also 
New  York  Times  of  Feb.  20th,  21st  and  May  15th.  For  a  sketch 
of  his  career  up  to  this  time  see  Cook,  Lives  of  Tilden  and 
Hendricks,  pp.  363-375.  Bigelow  says  Hendricks  was  "more  or 
less  infected  with  all  the  political  heresies  of  the  period  and  of 
the  section  in  which  he  resided." — Life  of  Tilden,  I,  p.  305. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  29 

City;  but  after  the  exposure  of  the  Tweed  Ring  by 
The  Times  in  1871,  he  had  at  the  eleventh  hour  thrown 
himself  into  a  desperate  struggle  against  the  Ring,  and 
it  had  been  partly  through  his  efforts  that  the  organiza 
tion  had  been  broken  up.  Despite  the  opposition  of 
Tammany,  he  had  in  1874  become  the  party's  candi 
date  for  governor,  and  had  been  triumphantly  elected 
over  John  A.  Dix  by  a  plurality  of  about  50,000.  As 
governor  he  had  waged  a  relentless  and  successful 
war  upon  the  so-called  "Canal  Ring,"  and  had  also 
succeeded  in  reducing  the  rate  of  taxation.  Cold, 
calculating,  and  secretive,  he  did  not  possess  the  qual 
ities  which  arouse  great  public  enthusiasm ;  but  by  the 
activities  just  described  he  had  gained  a  great  repu 
tation  as  a  reformer,  and,  though  he  had  incurred  some 
bitter  enmities  in  his  own  party,  had  succeeded  in  mak 
ing  himself  in  a  certain  sense  the  man  of  the  hour.  x 

The  Tilden  "boom"  was  formally  "launched"  upon 
the  country  by  the  New  York  Democratic  convention 
at  Utica  on  April  27th,  1876.  Despite  the  bitter  op 
position  of  Tammany  under  the  leadership  of  John 
Kelly,  the  convention  commended  the  work  of  Gover 
nor  Tilden  and  adopted  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that 


'  1  The  best  Life  of  Tilden,  although  uncritical,  is  that  by 
Bigelow.  Elaine  says  of  Tilden :  "His  hour  had  come ;  he 
promptly  grasped  the  leadership  thus  left  open.  Starting  out  for 
the  Presidential  nomination,  his  plan  embraced  three  features : 
his  stepping  stone  was  the  governorship,  his  shibboleth  was  ad 
ministrative  reform,  his  method  was  organization  to  a  degree 
which  has  never  been  surpassed." — Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  II, 
p.  574.  "Not  a  statesman  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  nor 
a  demagogue  in  the  lowest  sense  of  that  word — a  genuine  Amer 
ican  politician  of  the  first  order." — Burgess,  Reconstruction  and 
the  Constitution,  p.  282. 


30  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

the  Democratic  party  of  New  York  "suggest,  with  re 
spectful  deference  to  their  brethren  in  other  States, 
and  with  a  cordial  appreciation  of  other  renowned 
Democratic  statesmen,  faithful,  like  him,  to  their  polit 
ical  principles  and  public  trusts,  that  the  nomination 
of  Samuel  J.  Tilden  to  the  office  of  President  would 
insure  the  vote  of  New  York  and  would  be  approved 
throughout  the  Union."  1 

When  the  Democratic  hosts  gathered  at  St.  Louis  in 
the  latter  part  of  June,  it  was  already  apparent  that 
Tilden,  whose  campaign  had  been  managed  with  con 
summate  skill,  was  in  the  lead  and  would  probably  be 
nominated.  Nevertheless,  his  opponents  did  not  give 
up  hope.  They  urged  with  some  force  that  the  Dem 
ocratic  standard  bearer  in  each  of  the  last  three  cam 
paigns  had  been  a  New  Yorker,  and  each  time  had 
gone  down  to  disastrous  defeat.  The  Westerners 
pointed  out  that  Tilden  was  a  "hard  money"  man  and 
would  not  be  acceptable  in  their  section.  Most  of  all, 
his  opponents  emphasized  the  fact  that  he  had  numer 
ous  party  enemies  in  his  own  state.  Of  this  last  there 
was  present  concrete  proof  in  the  shape  of  a  large  con 
tingent  of  Tammany  "braves,"  led  by  John  Kelly,  who 
did  all  in  their  power  to  persuade  wavering  delega 
tions  that  Tilden  would,  if  nominated,  be  overwhelm 
ingly  defeated  in  New  York.  The  Tilden  forces  were, 
however,  admirably  organized,  and,  under  the  leader 
ship  of  such  men  as  William  L.  Scott,  A  very  Smith, 
Senator  Kernan,  John  Morrisey,  ex-Senator  Gwin, 

1  New  York  Herald,  World  and  Times  for  April  28th. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  31 

Lieutenant-Governor  Dorsheimer,  Montgomery  Blair, 
and  Henry  Watterson,  were  able  to  convince  many 
delegates  that  the  proper  candidate  to  lead  a  "reform" 
campaign  was  the  "reform"  governor  of  New  York. 

The  convention  assembled  on  June  27th  in  the  Mer 
chants'  Exchange,  and  was  called  to  order  by  Augustus 
Schell,  chairman  of  the  national  committee.  Henry 
Watterson  of  Kentucky  was  chosen  temporary  chair 
man  ;  he,  in  turn,  gave  way  in  the  afternoon  to 
the  permanent  chairman,  General  John  A.  McCler- 
nand  of  Illinois.  On  the  following  day  after  listening 
to  a  number  of  speeches,  among  them  the  usual  one 
by  a  representative  of  the  woman  suffragists,  the  con 
vention  received,  through  Mr.  Dorsheimer  of  New 
York,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions. 

The  platform  thus  submitted  can  be  roughly  sum 
marized  in  the  one  word  reform.  "Reform,"  it 
proclaimed,  "is  necessary"  to  secure  the  country  "from 
a  corrupt  centralism  which,  after  inflicting  upon  ten 
states  the  rapacity  of  carpet-bag  tyrannies,  has  honey 
combed  the  offices  of  the  Federal  Government  itself 
with  incapacity,  waste,  and  fraud,  infected  states  and 
municipalities  with  the  contagion  of  misrule,  and 
locked  fast  the  prosperity  of  an  industrious  people  in 
the  paralysis  of  'hard  times.'  Reform  is  necessary," 
it  contineed,  "to  establish  a  sound  currency;"  and  it 
denounced  the  resumption  clause  of  the  act  of  1875  as 
being  a  hindrance  to  a  speedy  return  to  specie  pay 
ments,  and  demanded  that  the  act  should  be  repealed. 


32  The  Hayes-Tilden 

"Reform  is  necessary,"  it  asserted,  "in  the  sum  and 
modes  of  federal  taxation  ;"  and  it  denounced  the 
"tariff,  levied  upon  nearly  4,000  articles,  as  a  master 
piece  of  injustice,  inequality,  and  false  pretense."  "Re 
form,"  it  further  declared,  "is  necessary  in  the  scale 
of  public  expense,  —  Federal,  state,  and  municipal ;" 
in  the  system  of  land  granting,  in  order  "to  put  a  stop 
to  the  profligate  waste  of  the  public  lands;"  in  the 
civil  service;  and  even  more  in  "the  higher  grades  of 
the  public  service." 

"When  the  annals  of  this  Republic,"  it  specified, 
"show  the  disgrace  and  censure  of  a  Vice-President; 
a  late  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  mar 
keting  his  rulings  as  a  presiding  officer ;  three  Senators 
profiting  secretly  by  their  votes  as  law-makers ;  five 
chairmen  of  the  leading  committees  of  the  late  House 
of  Representatives  exposed  in  jobbery ;  a  late  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  forcing  balances  in  the  public  ac 
counts  ;  a  late  Attorney-General  misappropriating  pub 
lic  funds ;  a  Secretary  of  the  Navy  enriched  or  enrich 
ing  friends  by  percentages  levied  off  the  profits  of 
contracts  with  his  departments ;  an  Ambassador  to 
England  censured  in  a  dishonorable  speculation;  the 
President's  private  secretary  barely  escaping  convic 
tion  upon  trial  for  guilty  complicity  in  frauds  upon 
the  revenue;  a  Secretary  of  War  impeached  for  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  —  the  demonstration  is  com 
plete,  that  the  first  step  in  reform  must  be  the  people's 
choice  of  honest  men  from  another  party,  lest  the  dis 
ease  of  one  political  organization  infect  the  body 
politic,  and  lest  by  making  no  change  of  men  or  parties 
we  get  no  change  of  measures  and  no  real  reform."  l 

1  The  platform  is  given  in  McPherson,  p.  215,  and  in  Stan- 
wood,  p.  322. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  33 

With  the  greater  part  of  the  platform  the  entire  con 
vention  \vas  in  hearty  accord;  but  the  financial  plank, 
while  ambiguous,  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  "soft 
money"  element,  and  a  hard  fight  was  waged  to  sub 
stitute  a  minority  report.  This  report,  signed  by  Ew- 
ing  of  Ohio,  Voorhees  of  Indiana,  and  others,  provided 
for  striking  out  the  clause,  "As  such  hindrance  we 
denounce  the  resumption  clause  of  the  Act  of  1875, 
and  we  here  demand  its  repeal,"  and  putting  in  its 
place  the  following,  "The  law  for  the  resumption  of 
specie  payments  on  the  1st  of  January,  1879,  having 
been  enacted  by  the  Republican  party  without  deliber 
ation  in  Congress  or  discussion  before  the  people,  and 
being  both  ineffective  to  secure  its  objects  and  highly 
injurious  to  the  business  of  the  country,  ought  forth 
with  to  be  repealed."  Voorhees  and  other  speakers, 
voicing  the  "West,  the  great  and  boundless  West," 
spoke  ardently  in  favor  of  the  change;  but  the  min 
ority  report  was  voted  down  by  550  to  219.  The  plat 
form,  as  reported,  was  then  adopted  by  651  to  83.  x 

Nominations  for  the  Presidency  were  then  declared 
in  order,  whereupon  Whitely  of  Delaware  presented 
the  name  of  Bayard;  "Blue  Jeans"  Williams  of  Indi 
ana  that  of  Hendricks;  Abbott  of  New  Jersey  that 
of  Governor  Joel  Parker;  Senator  Kernan  of  New 
York  that  of  Tilden;  Ewing  of  Ohio  that  of  ex-Gov 
ernor  Allen ;  and  Clymer  of  Pennsylvania  that  of  Han 
cock.  Much  excitement  was  caused  by  a  speech  made 

1  McPherson,  p.  217;  New  York  Herald,  World  and  Times  of 
June  29th. 


34  The  Hayes-Tilden 

by  John  Kelly  in  opposition  to  Tilden.  He  was  inter 
rupted  and  hissed,  and  was  able  to  get  a  hearing  only 
after  some  of  Tilden's  own  supporters  had  called  upon 
the  audience  for  fair  play.  He  then  solemnly  asserted 
that  the  nomination  of  Tilden  would  result  in  disaster 
to  the  party,  and  declared  himself  in  favor  of  Hen- 
dricks. 

When  the  balloting  began,  it  soon  became  appar 
ent,  however,  that  the  majority  of  the  delegates  were 
of  the  same  opinion  as  one  of  the  speakers  —  that  a 
"reform  campaign  without  Tilden  would  be  like  the 
play  of  Hamlet  with  Hamlet  left  out."  Of  the  votes 
cast  Tilden  received  417  out  of  a  total  of  739.  The 
balloting  in  detail  was  as  follows : 

Tilden   417 

Hendricks 140 

Hancock   75 

Allen   56 

Bayard    33 

Parker ,    18 


Total 739 

But  though  Tilden  had  a  majority  of  the  votes,  he 
had  not  yet  received  the  requisite  two-thirds,  so  a  sec 
ond  ballot  was  ordered.  Before  the  result  of  the  bal 
lot  was  announced  the  anxiety  of  many  delegates  to 
be  on  the  winning  side  resulted  in  Missouri  and  other 
states  announcing  changes  in  their  votes,  with  the 
result  that  Tilden  received  535  votes  and  the  nomi- 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  35 

nation. 1  The  nomination  was  thereupon  made  unani 
mous,  and  the  convention  adjourned  till  the  following 
day. 

In  the  interval  the  delegates  devoted  much  time  to 
canvassing  the  possibilities  for  the  Vice-Presidency. 
Among  those  mentioned  for  the  honor  were  Hendricks 
of  Indiana,  Payne  of  Ohio,  and  M.  R.  Morrison,  ex- 
Governor  J.  M.  Palmer,  and  Cyrus  McCormick  of  Illi 
nois.  When  the  convention  reassembled,  however, 
sentiment  had  so  crystallized  in  favor  of  Hendricks 
that,  despite  the  fact  that  it  was  not  known  whether 
he  would  accept,  he  was  nominated  by  acclamation. 

After  the  transaction  of  some  further  business  the 
convention,  having  done  all  that  lay  within  its  power  to 
insure  Democratic  success  in  the  forthcoming  election, 
adjourned  sine  die.  2 

1  The   second   ballot   in   detail  was  as   follows : 

Tilden   535 

Hendricks    60 

Hancock 59 

Allen 54 

Bayard 11 

Parker    18 

Thurman    7 

Total 744 

2  My  account  of  the  Democratic  convention  is  based  in  large 
measure  upon  files  of  the  newspapers  mentioned  at  the  end  of 
the  preceding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    CENTENNIAL    CAMPAIGN 

The  work  of  the  two  parties  in  their  respective  con 
ventions  was  fairly  well  received  by  the  rank  and 
file  of  each.  To  be  sure,  the  Republican  nominees, 
while  thoroughly  respectable,  did  not  arouse  a  great 
deal  of  enthusiasm ;  but  it  was  felt  to  be  something  of 
a  victory  to  have  put  in  the  field  a  ticket  upon  which 
all  factions  of  the  party  could  unite;  and  when  the 
first  shock  of  surprise  caused  by  the  nomination  of 
Hayes  had  passed  and  a  knowledge  of  his  stubborn 
stand  for  sound  money  and  of  his  war  record  —  four 
honorable  wounds  and  a  brevet  major-generalcy  — 
had  been  more  widely  disseminated,  not  a  few  mem 
bers  of  the  party  came  to  believe  with  reason  that 
the  choice  for  the  head  of  the  ticket  at  least  had  been 
the  wisest  possible. l  As  for  the  reception  accorded 
the  Democratic  nominees,  Tilden  was  for  a  little  while 
looked  upon  with  disfavor  by  some  elements  of  the 
party  in  the  "soft  money"  West;  while  a  somewhat 

1  Harper's  Weekly,  XX,  pp.  526  and  546 ;  Burgess,  Recon 
struction  and  the  Constitution,  p.  281 ;  Elaine,  II,  p.  572.  Elaine 
naturally  does  not  speak  quite  so  strongly.  The  Conkling  forces 
remained  apathetic  during  the  campaign  ;  for  a  partial  explana 
tion  see  the  Life  of  Conkling  by  A.  R.  Conkling,  pp.  511-512  and 
621.  Conkling  promised  to  make  four  speeches,  but  on  account 
ef  illness  made  only  one. 


The  Disputed  Election  of  l8j6         37 

similar  feeling  towards  his  running  mate  was  enter 
tained  by  some  Democrats  in  the  "hard  money"  East ; 
but  in  both  sections  the  dissentients  soon  fell  into  line 
and  supported  the  ticket.  a 

As  -regards  the  platforms,  that  put  forth  by  the 
Democrats,  though  vague  on  certain  important  issues, 
particularly  those  of  resumption  and  civil  service  re 
form,  was  looked  upon  by  somt  independents  as  the 
stronger.2  The  Nation,  the  most  ably  edited  of  the  in 
dependent  periodicals  of  the  day,  was  of  the  opinion 
that  the  utterance  of  the  Republican  platform  on  the 
question  of  civil  service  reform  was  a  "barren  propo 
sition,"  that  the  platform  evaded  the  currency  issue, 
and  that,  as  a  whole,  it  afforded  "an  excellent  specimen 
of  the  sort  of  mild  imposture  which  the  politician  of 
our  day  tries  to  practice  on  the  people  after  his  party 
ceases  to  have  substantial  and  unmistakable  work  to 
do."  3 

The  letters  of  acceptance  received  more  attention 
from  the  public  than  did  the  platforms.  4  That  of  Mr. 
Hayes  put  him  in  higher  favor  with  the  reformers, 
for  in  it  he  denounced  the  spoils  system  as  tending  to 
"extravagance  and  official  incapacity,"  and  declared 


1  The  Cincinnati  Enquirer  called  Tilden's  nomination  a  blow 
at    the    West ;    the    Evansville    Courier    temporarily    bolted    the 
ticket ;    and   other  western   Democratic   newspapers,   notably  the 
Indianapolis  Sentinel,  were  for  a  day  or  two  not  at  all  enthus 
iastic  for  Tilden.     Bigelow  thinks  that  the  nomination  of  Hen- 
dricks  prevented  many  independents  from  supporting  the  ticket. 
—Life    of   Tilden,    I,    p.    306. 

2  The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.   4. 

3  Ibid,  XXII.  p.   390. 

4  Ibid,   XXIII,   p.    144.     The   letters  are   given   in   McPherson, 
pp.  212  and  2-17;  also  in  the  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,  pp.   783 
and   787. 

4 


38  The  Hayes-Tilden 

himself  unreservedly  for  civil  service  reform.1  Mr. 
Tilden  devoted  the  greater  portion  of  his  long  letter  to 
financial  questions.  His  arguments,  in  general,  were 
able  ones ;  but  his  plan  for  resumption,  in  view  of  the 
past  attitude  of  his  party  on  that  subject,  was  "cloudy 
in  the  extreme."  2 

In  the  weeks  immediately  following  the  conventions 
much  curiosity  existed  as  to  what  would  be  the  action 
of  the  Independents.  In  the  main  the  members  of  the 
Fifth  Avenue  Conference,  though  they  had  leaned  to 
wards  Bristow,  and  were  not  entirely  satisfied  with  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  came  out  for  Hayes;  notable  ex 
ceptions  were  Mr.  Parke  Godwin  and  Mr.  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  both  of  whom  supported  Tilden. 3 
The  leaders  of  what  remained  of  the  Liberal  Repub 
lican  organization  declared  for  Hayes  and  declined  to 
hold  a  convention.  4 

But  though  the  Liberal  Republican  party  thus  dis 
appeared  from  history,  three  other  minor  parties  re 
mained.  One  of  these,  the  Prohibition  Reform  Party, 
had  in  May  nominated  at  Cleveland  a  ticket  composed 
of  Green  Clay  Smith  of  Kentucky,  and  G.  T.  Stew 
art  of  Ohio.  The  Independent  Nationals,  or  "Green- 


1  The  Nation,  XXIII,  pp.  17  and  84.   Mr.  Hayes  also  stated  an 
"inflexible  purpose,   if  elected,   not  to  be  a  candidate  for  a  sec 
ond  term." 

2  Ibid,  p.   84. 

3  See    an    article    on    "Independents    in    the    Canvass"    in    the 
North    American    Review    for    October,    1876;    also    The    Nation, 
XXIII,    p.    222.     A    letter   written    by    Godwin    appeared    in    the 
Tribune  for  July  22d;  one  by  Adams  in  the  Sun  for  August  5th. 
Adams  was  nominated  for  governor  by  the  Massachusetts  Dem 
ocrats.     Much  was  said  by  Republicans  about  "Adams's  fall." 

4  The  Nation,  XXIII,   p.    49. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  39 

backers,"  in  a  convention  held  at  Indianapolis  in  the 
same  month  had  nominated  the  philanthropist,  Peter 
Cooper,  of  New  York,  and  Newton  Booth  of  Califor 
nia;  but  Booth  had  subsequently  declined  the  honor, 
and  Samuel  F.  Cary  of  Ohio  had  been  substituted.  A 
third  organization,  the  American  Nationals,  had  in 
June  met  in  mass  convention  at  Pittsburg  and  had 
nominated  James  B.  Walker  of  Illinois,  and  Donald 
Kirkpatrick  of  New  York. 1  The  race  made  by  these 
three  parties  served  to  give  a  humorous  side  to 
the  canvass,  but  all  serious  interest  was  concentrated 
upon  the  doings  of  the  Republicans  and  the  Demo 
crats. 

The  Democrats,  under  the  direct  but  secret  manage 
ment  of  Mr.  Tilden  himself,  fought  the  campaign  on 
lines  laid  down  in  the  platform.  Their  speakers  de 
nounced  the  extravagance  of  the  Republican  rule,  and 
contrasted  the  cost  of  Democratic  government  under 
such  Presidents  as  Buchanan  with  the  enormous  cost 
under  Grant.  They  pointed  to  the  "Salary  Grab;"  to 
the  whiskey  frauds,  by  which,  they  asserted,  the  treas 
ury  had  lost  not  less  than  $15,000,000  annually;  to 
the  Clews  Banking  Company  scandal ;  to  the  Emma 
Mine  scandal,  with  which  the  minister  to  England  had 
been  connected ;  to  the  Credit  Mobilier  scandal ;  to  the 
Venezuela  scandal;  to  the  Post  Trader  frauds;  and 
to  all  the  other  malodorous  transactions  in  which  in 
cautious  congressmen,  cabinet  officers,  and  other  per- 

1  Accounts  of  all  these  conventions,  with  the  platforms,  are 
given  by  McClure,  pp.  257-260  ;  of  the  first  two  by  McPherson, 
pp.  224-225,  and  by  Stanwood,  pp.  310-313. 


40  The  Hayes-Tilden 

sons  high  up  in  the  Republican  party  had  been  in 
volved.  1  And  having  brought  their  indictment,  they 
tried  to  convince  the  people  that  the  only  way  to  se 
cure  an  efficient,  honest,  and  economical  administra 
tion  would  be  to  turn  the  Republicans  out  and  put 
the  Democrats  in. 

The  Republican  leaders  were  quite  aware  that  their 
party's  recent  record  was  not  one  with  which  it  would 
be  safe  to  go  before  the  people.  Practically  their  only 
hope  of  securing  a  new  lease  of  power  lay  in  creating 
a  still  greater  distrust  of  Democrats  than  was  enter 
tained  for  Republicans.  They  set  about  doing  this 
by  reviving  the  sectional  issue,  by  denouncing  the 
Democracy  and  all  its  works,  and  by  attacking  with 
great  virulence  the  personal  record  of  Mr.  Tilden. 
As  already  related,  the  way  for  the  revival  of  the  sec 
tional  issue  had  already  been  prepared  by  Mr.  Blaine. 
The  party  orators  "waved  the  bloody  shirt"  with  great 
vehemence,  dwelt  upon  the  horrors  of  Andersonville, 
harped  upon  the  intimidation  of  negroes,  and  sought 
to  identify  the  Democratic  party  with  the  party  which 
brought  on  the  warJQVnother  argument  was  that  if 
the  Democrats  should  come  into  power,  they  would 
pay  about  two  billion  dollars'  worth  of  Southern  war 
claims,  and  would  also  ruin  our  credit  abroad.  ^  Much 


1  A  good  summary  of  the  Democratic  case  is  given  by  Bige- 
low,  II,  pp.   1-4.     See  also  the  Democratic  Campaign  Text  Book 
for   1876.     Some   unimportant   attacks  were  made  upon   the   in 
tegrity  of  the  Republican  candidates.     Much  also  was  said  about 
Republican   misgovernment  in  the  South. 

2  The  Nation,  XXIII,  pp.  247,  263,  277.  Tilden  issued  a  state 
ment  denying  that  he  would  allow  the  payment  of  the  claims. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  41 

was  made  of  the  conflicting  opinions  of  the  Demo 
cratic  candidates  on  the  currency  question.  One  of 
the  cartoons  of  the  day  represented  the  party  as  a 
double-headed  tiger,  one  head  being  that  of  Tilden, 
the  other  that  of  Hendricks;  the  collars  round  their 
necks  were  labelled  respectively  "Contraction"  and 
"Inflation ;"  below  was  an  inscription,  part  of  which 
read,  "This  double-headed,  double-faced  Tiger  can 
be  turned  any  way  to  gull  the  American  people."  1 
As  an  offset  to  Republican  frauds,  the  orators  said  a 
great  deal  about  Tweed  and  Tammany  Hall.  And, 
when  all  other  resources  were  exhausted,  they  fell  back 
upon  "the  general  cussedness  of  all  Democrats,  their 
moral  degradation,  liking  for  liquor,  antipathy  to  'good 
men,'  and  fondness  for  brawling,  fighting,  and  gen 
eral  deviltry."2 

The  attack  upon  Mr.  Tilden  was  led  by  the  New 
York  Times.  The  chief  charges  brought  against  him 
were  that  he  had  been  a  railroad  "wrecker,"  that  he 
had  extorted  excessive  fees  for  legal  services,  that  he 
had  been  a  Rebel  sympathizer,  that  he  had  failed  to 
make  full  and  fair  returns  of  his  income  to  the  tax 
assessor,  and  that  he  was  a  mere  sham  eleventh-hour 
reformer,  who  had  gone  into  the  fight  against  the 
Tweed  Ring  and  the  Canal  Ring  merely  to  pave  his 

1  Nast  in  Harper's  Weekly,  July  22d;  see  also  number  for 
August  26th. 

j2  The  Nation,  XXIII,  pp.  115-116.  For  a  humorous  view  of 
the  campaign  see  Ibid,  p.  308.  Many  independents  had  hoped 
that  the  campaign  would  be  one  of  reason  not  of  feeling.  Not 
much  was  said  about  civil  service  reform  except  at  the  very 
last.  A  good  deal  was  said  in  some  quarters  about  state  aid  to 
parochial  schools?  j 


42  The  Hayes-Til  den 

way  to  the  Presidency.  Most  of  these  charges  were 
wholly  without  foundation;  some  of  them  were  even 
absurd ;  but  there  was  a  modicum  of  truth  in  some  of 
them ;  they  were  seized  upon  with  great  avidity  by  the 
Republican  press  and  orators ;  and  Mr.  Tilden  was  kept 
busy  "explaining."  l 

Despite  all  their  efforts,  however,  the  Republicans, 
even  under  the  able  management  of  the  astute  Zachariah 
Chandler  of  Michigan,  were  not  immediately  able  to 
turn  back  the  tide  which  had  been  running  against  them 
so  strongly  during  the  past  three  years.  The  results 
of  the  elections  in  the  "October  States"  were  slightly 
unfavorable  to  them.  West  Virginia  went  Democratic 
by  more  than  12,000,  and  Indiana  by  more  than  5,000, 
while  in  Ohio  the  Republican  majority  was  less  than 
9,000.  2 

Throughout  the  campaign  the  Republican  news 
papers  were  full  of  stories  of  Democratic  outrages 
upon  the  negroes  in  the  South.  With  the  idea  of 
weakening  the  Republican  charges  a  Northern  Dem- 


1 .  Upon  the  subject  of  his  work  as  a  railroad  "reorganizer" 
see  Harper's  Weekly,  XX,  p.  751,  and  The  Nation,  XXIII,  pp. 
Ill,  115,  219.  "Sly  Sam,  the  Railroad  thief,"  was  one  of  the 
pleasant  appellations  bestowed  upon  him  in  one  of  the  cam 
paign  songs.  For  his  attitude  during  the  war  see  Harper's 
Weekly,  XX,  pp.  590,  730,  750,  826;  The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.  Ill; 
and  speeches  of  J.  A.  Kasson  and  A.  S.  Hewitt  in  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  on  August  14th.  The  income  tax  charge  was  pressed 
with  great  vigor.  See  Bigelow,  II,  pp.  5-7,  225-260;  The  Nation, 
XXIII,  pp.  125,  141,  157,  174,  187,  190.  206,  263.  On  all  these 
matters  I  have  made  use  of  files  of  the  Times,  Herald  and  World. 

2  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,  pp.  411,  648,  805.  In  Indiana  the 
Republicans  were  handicapped  by  the  discovery  that  their  can 
didate  for  governor,  G.  S.  Orth,  had  been  implicated  in  the 
Venezuela  scandal.  He  was  forced  to  withdraw,  and  Benjamin 
Harrison  was  substituted,  but  the  scandal  did  the  party  great 
harm. — Foulke,  II,  p.  415. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  43 

ocrat,  Scott  Lord  of  New  York,  in  August  introduced 
into  the  House  of  Representatives  a  resolution  to  the 
effect  that  "all  attempts  by  force,  fraud,  terror,  in 
timidation,  or  otherwise  to  prevent  the  free  exercise  of 
the  rights  of  suffrage  in  any  state,  should  meet  cer 
tain,  condign,  and  effectual  punishment."  The  resolu 
tion  was  put  forward  rather  unexpectedly  without  a 
party  conference  on  the  subject,  and  for  various  rea 
sons  it  proved  rather  embarrassing  for  some  Demo 
crats.  However,  after  attempts  had  unsuccessfully 
been  made  to  dodge  it,  it  was  passed  by  a  large  ma 
jority,  although  many  Democrats  refrained  from  vot 
ing  either  for  or  against  it. l 

Much  more  effective  steps  to  prevent  disorder  in  the 
South  were  taken  by  other  branches  of  the  Federal 
government.  On  the  I5th  of  August  the  secretary 
of  war,  in  an  order  which  quoted  the  above  mentioned 
resolution,  directed  General  Sherman,  the  commander- 
in-chief,  to  hold  all  available  troops  in  readiness  for 
use,  upon  call  or  requisition  of  the  proper  legal  author 
ities,  in  assisting  to  secure  the  political  rights  of  all 
citizens,  irrespective  of  color  or  condition.  On  Sep 
tember  4th  the  attorney  general  issued  a  circular  of 
instructions  for  the  guidance  of  the  United  States  mar 
shals,  whose  duty  it  was,  under  the  Federal  election 
laws,  to  exercise  an  oversight  over  the  conduct  of 
elections  for  congressmen  and  electors.  Three  days 


\Congressional   Record,   44th   Congress,    1st   session,   p.    5414; 
The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.  97. 


44         The  Disputed  Election  of  1876 

later  a  general  order  was  issued  for  the  guidance  of 
the  army. 1 

But  despite  all  these  resolutions  and  instructions, 
there  came  up  from  time  to  time  from  the  Southland 
rumors  of  intimidation,  of  "massacres,"  and  of  other 
manifestations  of  a  bitter  determination  on  the  part 
of  the  Southern  Democrats,  particularly  in  the  "unre 
deemed"  states  of  Florida,  Louisiana,  and  South  Car 
olina,  to  win  their  way  to  political  power  at  any  cost. 
In  South  Carolina  the  activity  of  "rifle-clubs,"  riding 
"up  and  down  by  day  and  night  in  arms,  murdering 
some  peaceable  citizens  and  intimidating  others,"  be 
came  so  great  that  in  October  the  governor  appealed 
to  the  President  for  military  aid,  and  more  than  thirty 
companies  of  troops  were  sent  thither.  But  the  exact 
truth  concerning  the  situation  in  these  states  is  so 
intimately  connected  with  conclusions  which  must  later 
be  drawn  that  the  subject  will  be  taken  up  in  detail  in 
future  chapters. 


1  All  these  papers  are  given  in  House  Ex.  Doc.  No.  30,  44th 
Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  pp.  5-10.  The  order  issued  by  the  secretary  of 
war  aroused  much  "Democratic  fury"  and  denunciation. — Har 
per's  Weekly,  XX,  p.  806. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  ELECTION  —  REPUBLICAN  HOPE  AFTER  DESPAIR 

The  returns  which  came  in  on  the  night  of  Tuesday, 
November  7th,  were  such  as  to  indicate  the  election 
of  Tilden  and  Hendricks.  The  Democratic  morning 
papers  were  almost  unanimous  in  claiming  victory ; 1 
jubilant  headlines  on  the  pages  of  journals  which  had 
taken  no  satisfaction  in  chronicling  the  results  of  a 
Presidential  election  for  twenty  long  years  announced 
the  news.  2  The  Republican  newspapers  were  scarcely 
less  unanimous  in  either  directly  or  indirectly  admit 
ting  defeat.  A  fair  sample  of  what  appeared  in  many 
such  papers  that  morning  is  the  following,  taken  from 
the  Indianapolis  Journal,  one  of  the  most  intensely  par 
tisan  in  the  country : 


1  It  has  erroneously  been  claimed  that  all  the  newspapers  in 
the    country,    with    the   exception   of   the    New   York    Times,   an 
nounced  a  Democratic  victory.     The  New  York  Herald,  for  ex 
ample,   did   not ;    in  its   2:30   edition   on  the   morning  of  the   8th 
it  stated  that  the   "Result  is  undecided."     On  the   9th   its   sum 
mary    was:      181    for    Hayes,    184    for    Tilden,    with    Florida    in 
doubt.     "Is   Tilden's   election,"    it   queried,    "a   Snark   or   a   Boo- 
jum?" 

2  "The  new  era  begins,"  said  the  New  York   World.     "Peace 
on  Earth  and  to  men  of  good  will  is  the  glorious  message  of  this 
glorious  day." 


46  The  Hayes-Til  den 

"THE  RESULT 

"Tilden  and  Hendricks  Undoubtedly  Elected. 
Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and 
Indiana  Join  the  South.  Which  Gives  Them 
123  Votes  and  Swells  the  Aggregate  to  188." 

An  editorial  in  the  same  paper  read  as  follows : 

"With  the  result  before  us  at  this  writing  we  see  no 
escape  from  the  conclusion  that  Tilden  and  Hendricks 
are  elected.  The  Democrats  have  doubtless  carried 
every  Southern  state,  together  with  the  states  of  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Connecticut,  and  Indiana,  with  pos 
sibly  Wisconsin.  No  returns  have  been  received  from 
the  Pacific  coast,  but  none  that  may  be  received  can 
materially  alter  the  present  aspect  of  the  case.  Tilden 
is  elected.  The  announcement  will  carry  pain  to  every 
loyal  heart  in  the  nation,  but  the  inevitable  truth  may 
as  well  be  stated." 

But  there  was  one  Republican  newspaper  office, 
namely  that  of  the  New  York  Times,  in  which  a  dif 
ferent  view  of  the  result  prevailed.  Many  erroneous 
statements  have  been  made  regarding  what  took  place 
in  The  Times  office  that  night. 1  One  story  which  has 
gained  wide  currency  is  to  the  effect  that  as  Mr.  John 
C.  Reid,  the  news  editor,  sat  in  his  sanctum  deploring 
the  defeat  of  Hayes,  he  received  from  the  chairman  of 
the  Democratic  national  committe,  a  note  inquiring 
a'bout  the  result  in  Louisiana,  South  Carolina,  Florida, 


1  See,  for  example,  Bigelow,  II,  p.  9. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  47 

and  Oregon;1  that  Mr.  Reid  thereupon,  without  any 
information  on  which  to  base  his  belief  other  than  this 
hint  of  Democratic  uncertainty,  proceeded  to  claim 
these  states  for  the  Republicans ;  and  that  at  that  mom 
ent  was  born  a  "conspiracy"  which  ultimately  resulted 
in  the  seating  of  Hayes.  As  a  matter  of  history, 
"neither  'conspiracy'  within  the  office  nor  'inspiration' 
from  without  had  anything  to  do  with  the  verdict." 
In  the  editorial  council,  composed  of  Mr.  John  Foord, 
Mr.  George  Shepard,  Mr.  Edward  Gary,  and  Mr.  Reid, 
there  was,  to  be  sure,  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
vvhat  attitude  to  assume,  for  the  dispatches  received, 
especially  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  evening,  had  been 
unfavorable;  but  "the  clear  and  composed  intellect  of 
Mr.  Edward  Gary  [not  of  Mr.  Reid]  exercised  a  pre 
ponderating  weight"  against  conceding  Democratic 
victory. 2  Accordingly  the  following  non-committal 
editorial,  prepared  by  Mr.  Gary,  appeared  in  the  first 
edition  of  The  Times: 

"A    DOUBTFUL    ELECTION 

"At  the  time  of  going  to  press  with  our  first  edition 

1  At  3  :45  A.  M.  the  following  dispatch  was  sent  to  The  Times: 
"Please   give  your   estimate   of   electoral   votes   secured   for   Til- 
den.     Answer  at  once."     But  the  dispatch  was  signed  by  D.  A. 
Magone,  not  by  Senator  Barnum,  as  some  writers  have  stated. — 
H.  K.  Mis.  Doc.  No.   31,  45th  Cong.,   3d  Sess.,  I,  p.  527. 

2  My  authority  for  this  account  is  in  part  the  Jubilee  Supple 
ment  of   The   Times,  September   18,    1901,   pp.    17-18.     "The   dili 
gence  of  the  gentleman  last  named    [Mr.    Reid],"  says  this  ac 
count,  "in  awakening  the  Republican  managers  to  a  perception  of 
the  duty  which  awaited  them  in  the  South  may  account  for  the 
prevalent  impression  that  the  stand  of  The   Times  in  regard  to 
the   election    of   Hayes   and    Wheeler   was   especially   his   work." 
As  a  matter  of  fact,   Mr.   Reid   favored   admitting  defeat.     For 
some  of  the  facts  not  contained  in  the  Jubilee  Supplement  I  am 
indebted  to  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  was  present  at  the   "edi 
torial   council." 


48  The  Hayes-Til  den 

the  result  of  the  presidential  election  is  still  in  doubt. 
Enough  has  been  learned  to  show  that  the  vote  has 
been  unprecedentedly  heavy ;  that  both  parties  have  ex 
hausted  their  full  legitimate  strength  ;  that  the  peculiar 
Democratic  policy  for  which  such  extensive  prepara 
tions  were  made  in  the  large  registry  in  this  city,  and 
in  Brooklyn,  has  had  its  effect,  and  that  in  some  of  the 
states  where  the  shotgun  and  rifle  club  were  relied  upon 
to  secure  a  Democratic  victory,  there  is  only  too  much 
reason  to  fear  that  it  has  been  successful." 

Then  came  a  paragraph  conceding  New  York  and 
after  that  figures  showing  that  Tilden  had  received 
175  votes  for  certain  and  Hayes  178  votes  for  certain. 
The  editorial  closed  thus: 

"This  leaves  New  Jersey,  Oregon  and  Florida  still 
in  doubt.  If  the  Republicans  have  carried  New  Jer 
sey,  they  have  187  votes,  or  a  majority  of  five.  If  they 
have  carried  Florida  and  Oregon,  they  have  185  votes, 
or  a  majority  of  one.  The  Democrats,  in  order  to 
gain  the  election  (New  York  being  conceded),  must 
have  carried  New  Jersey,  and  in  addition  either  Ore 
gon  or  Florida.  The  returns  from  New  Jersey  leave 
the  state  in  doubt.  Oregon  is  not  heard  from.  Flor 
ida  is  claimed  by  the  Democrats." 

Later  returns  proved  more  favorable,  and  in  a  sub 
sequent  edition  published  at  6:30  A.  M.  a  slightly  more 
confident  editorial  displaced  the  one  just  quoted.  The 
pessimistic  sentence  about  the  shotgun  and  rifle  clubs 
was  struck  out  of  the  first  paragraph,  but  the  para 
graph  to  the  effect  that  New  York  had  probably  gone 
Democratic  was  retained.  Then  came  the  following : 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6 


49 


"Conceding  New  York  to  Mr.  Tilden,  he  will  receive 
the  electoral  votes  of  the  following-  states  : 
Alabama,  10     Mississippi, 

Missouri,  15 

New  Jersey,  9 

New  York,  35 

North  Carolina,  10 

Tennessee,  12 

Texas, 

Virginia,  II 

5 


Arkansas, 

Connecticut, 

Delaware, 

Georgia, 

Indiana, 

Kentucky, 

Maryland, 


6 

6 

3 

ii 

15 

12 

8 


West  Virginia, 
Total, 


184 


"General  Hayes 
ing  states  : 
California, 
Colorado, 
Illinois, 
Iowa, 
Kansas, 


Maine, 

Massachusetts, 

Michigan, 

Minnesota, 

Nebraska, 


will  receive  the  votes  of  the  follow- 


6  Nevada,  3 
3  New  Hampshire,  5 

21  Ohio,  22 

1 1  Oregon,  ^  3 

5  Pennsylvania,  29 

8  Rhode  Island,  4 

7  South   Carolina, \J^  7 
13  Vermont,  5 
ii  Wisconsin,  10 

£  

Total,  181 


"This  leaves  Fjprida  alone  still  in  doubt.  If  the  Re 
publicans  have  carried  that  state,  as  they  claim,  they 
will  have  185  votes — a  majority  of  one." 

Believing  that  the  situation  was  not  correctly  under 
stood  by  the  party  leaders,  Mr.  Reid,  the  news  editor, 
hurried  to  the  Republican  headquarters  in  the 
Fifth  Avenue  Hotel.  Arrived  there,  he  found  the 


50  The  Hayes-Tilden 

committee  rooms  deserted  save  by  some  employees  of 
the  hotel ;  for,  a  couple  of  hours  before,  the  committee- 
men  and  their  friends  had  given  up  all  as  lost,  and 
had  either  gone  home  or  gone  to  bed  in  the  hotel.  Mr. 
Reid  at  once  decided  to  hunt  up  Zachariah  Chandler, 
the  national  chairman,  and  started  for  the  hotel  office 
in  order  to  ascertain  the  number  of  Mr.  Chandler's 
room. 

On  his  way  thither  he  met  a  small  man  wearing  a 
greatcoat  with  a  heavy  military  cloak,  with  his  hat 
drawn  down  over  his  eyes,  and  carrying  a  gripsack 
and  a  copy  of  the  New  York  Tribune.  The  newcomer 
was  Mr.  W.  E.  Chandler,  a  member  of  the  Republican 
committee,  who  had  just  returned  to  New  York  after 
a  short  trip  to  New  Hampshire.  Mr.  Chandler  be 
lieved  that  the  Republicans  were  defeated,  but  Mr. 
Reid  told  him  that  this  was  a  mistake,  that  the  Demo 
crats  themselves  were  still  uncertain  as  to  the  out 
come.  In  support  of  this  statement  he  showed  Mr. 
Chandler  a  dispatch  from  Democratic  headquarters 
asking  for  what  information  The  Times  had  upon  the 
situation.1  Mr.  Reid  urged  that  the  Republicans  ought 
to  keep  up  their  heads  and  claim  the  election  of 
Hayes.  The  two  then  repaired  to  Mr.  W.  E.  Chan 
dler's  room,  "where  they  went  over  the  ground  care 
fully,  state  by  state,  from  Maine  to  Oregon,  counting 
the  electoral  vote  in  each  state,  and  showing  the  vote 
as  it  was  finally  counted  for  Hayes  and  Tilden." 

As  the  situation  seemed  to  contain  possibilities,  the 

1  See  note  1,  p.   47. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8?6  51 

two  then  went  in  search  of  Mr.  Zachariah  Chandler,  the 
chairman  of  the  committee.  After  one  or  two  rather 
ludicrous  mistakes  they  found  his  room,  and  after 
considerable  knocking  the  door  "was  opened,  and  Mr. 
Zachariah  Chandler  was  discovered  standing  in  his 
night  dress."  He  was,  however,  so  utterly  worn  out 
that  he  was  with  difficulty  made  to  understand  the  sit 
uation,  and  merely  authorized  Mr.  W.  E.  Chandler 
to  do  what  he  thought  necessary. 

Mr.  W.  E.  Chandler  and  Mr.  Reid  then  hurried  to 
the  hotel  telegraph  office  in  order  to  dispatch  some 
messages  to  the  states  which  were  in  doubt.  Finding 
the  office  locked,  they  decided  to  take  the  messages  to 
the  main  office  of  the  Western  Union,  and  therefore 
ordered  a  carriage.  In  the  interval  before  it  arrived, 
messages  were  prepared  to  Governor  Chamberlain  of 
South  Carolina,  to  S.  B.  Conover,  Tallahassee,  Florida, 
to  S.  B.  Packard,  Republican  candidate  for  governor 
of  Louisiana,  and  to  persons  in  Oregon  and  California. 
The  import  of  all  these  telegrams  can  be  inferred  from 
that  sent  to  South  Carolina,  for  it  was  typical.  It 
was  as  follows : 

"Hayes  is  elected  if  we  have  carried  South  Carolina, 
Florida,  and  Louisiana.  Can  you  hold  your  state? 
Answer  immediately." 

Mr.  Reid  then  took  the  telegrams  to  the  Western 
Union  office  and  dispatched  them. l 

1  This  account  is  based  upon  an  article  by  Mr.  Reid  in  The 
Times  for  June  15,  1887;  on  Mr.  W.  E.  Chandler's  testimony  be 
fore  the  Potter  Committee,  in  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th 
Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.  525,  et  seq.;  and  upon  information  supplied 


52  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Later  in  the  day  Mr.  Zach.  Chandler,  who  had  now 
become  fully  alive  to  the  possibilities  of  the  situation, 
sent  out  the  following  famous  telegram : 

"Hayes  has  185  electoral  votes  and  is  elected." 

To  this  claim  the  Republican  leaders  consistently 
and  stubbornly  adhered  until  the  end.  And  thus  began 
what  was  in  some  respects  the  most  remarkable  con 
test  which  any  country  has  ever  witnessed. 

The  changed  face  of  affairs  quickly  became  known 
throughout  the  country,  and  the  Republican  news 
papers  definitely  claimed  the  election  of  Hayes.  The 
Indianapolis  Journal,  for  example,  had  this  headline  on 
the  morning  of  the  Qth : 

"A  CHANGE 

"The  Republicans  Take  Their  Turn  at  Rejoic 
ing.  The  Conclusion  of  Yesterday  Reversed. 
Latest  Returns  Give  Hayes  185  Votes.  A 
Majority  of  One.  All  the  Pacific  States, 
Louisiana,  South  Carolina,  and  Florida,  Are 
Claimed  by  the  National  Committee  as  Cer 
tainly  Republican." 

An  editorial  in  the  same  issue  ran  as  follows: 
"During  the  last  twenty-four  hours  the  political  situ- 


by  Mr.  Chandler,  who  has  read  this  and  other  chapters.  Mr. 
Chandler  denies  using  language  attributed  to  him  by  Reid,  and 
also  denies  that  Reid  dictated  the  telegrams.  For  a  humorous 
commentary  on  Reid's  article  see  New  York  Sun  for  June  19, 
1887. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  53 

ation  has  undergone  a  remarkable  change,  and  one  en 
tirely  favorable  to  the  Republicans.  At  the  time  of 
going  to  press  yesterday  morning  the  returns  indicated 
very  clearly  the  election  of  Tilden  and  Hendricks,  and 
the  Journal,  in  common  with  all  the  leading  papers  of 
the  country,  conceded  the  fact.  At  this  writing,  ap 
parently  trustworthy  advices  indicate  almost  unmis 
takably  that  Hayes  and  Wheeler  are  elected 

"You  could  have  told  a  Republican  five  hundred 
yards  by  the  length  of  his  visage  yesterday  morning, 
and  when  groups  of  them  gathered  on  the  street  cor 
ners  pedestrians  instinctively  looked  around  for  the 
corpse.  There  was  every  outward  indication  of  a  fun 
eral,  and  it  only  needed  the  presence  of  a  well  filled  cof 
fin  to  make  the  delusion  complete.  They  had  given  up 
the  ship  the  night  before,  and  the  news  in  the  morning 

confirmed  their  fears 

"Democrats  could  be  recognized,  too,  at  long  range, 
and  their  rubicund  faces  told  plainly  that  they  'liked 
it  pretty  well,  thank  you.'  The  experience  of  a  na 
tional  victory  was  a  novel  one,  and  the  taste  was  sweet 
indeed.  It  was  intoxicating  in  its  effects,  and  operated 
on  the  Democratic  system  like  a  dose  of  hashish  on  a 
cultivated  Hindoo  stomach.  They  were  wild  with  joy, 
and  wanted  to  bet  their  substance  on  Tilden  and  Hen 
dricks.  They  swapped  stories  with  each  other  until 
Tilden  was  elected  unanimously.  Then  they  got  to 
gether  and  yelled,  and  gaining  confidence  with  each 

yawp,    yawped    again This     sort     of     thing 

was  kept  up  until  n  o'clock,  when  a  reaction  set  in. 
....  Our  boys  began  to  brace  up  at  this  cheer 
ful  intelligence.  During  the  afternoon  public  opinion 
underwent  an  almost  complete  revolution,  and  the  Re 
publicans  emerged  from  the  valley  and  shadow  of  dark 
despair  into  the  sunshine  of  hope,  and  the  world  looked 
less  wicked  to  them.  Telegrams  continued  quite  fa- 


54  The  Hayes-Tilden 

vorable  all  the  afternoon,  and  it  looked  very  much  as 
though  the  name  of  the  babe  would  be  Rutherford." 

Many  of  "Rutherford's"  friends  continued  for  a  day 
or  two  to  believe  that  he  had  been  defeated, 1  but 
meanwhile  the  Republican  managers  were  doing  yeo 
man  work  for  him.  They  were  fully  aware  of  the 
desperate  necessity  of  securing  every  doubtful  vote, 
and  left  no  stone  unturned  to  obtain  that  result. 
Agents,  among  them  W.  E.  Chandler,  were  immedi 
ately  dispatched  southward  to  the  three  states  of  Flor 
ida,  Louisiana,  and  South  Carolina.  Ample  funds 
were  provided  for  their  use. 

As  it  was  not  improbable  that  disorders  might  occur 
in  the  disputed  states,  the  Republican  leaders  deemed 
it  wise  to  secure  troops  for  the  protection  of  the  can 
vassing  officers.  The  task  of  getting  them  was  not  a 
difficult  one ; 2  for  the  President  was  a  Republican,  his 
secretary  of  the  interior  was  the  head  of  the  Repub 
lican  organization,  and,  furthermore,  in  the  nick  of 
time  Governor  Stearns  of  Florida  telegraphed  that  a 
special  train  sent  out  to  get  returns  had  been  "ku- 


1  Several  writers  have  represented  Hayes  as  admitting  defeat. 
An  alleged  interview  in  which  he  was  reported  to  have  said  that 
he  regretted  his  defeat  most  because  of  the  effect  it  would  have 
on  "the  poor  colored  men"  was  published  in  many  newspapers 
at  the  time  (e.  g.,  in  the  New  York  Sun  of  November  9th). 
This  interview  was  later  denied. — H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  II.  45th 
Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  I,  p.  880.  Col.  Webb  C.  Hayes,  who  was  his 
father's  secretary,  says  that  Governor  Hayes  never  admitted 
defeat. 

2  It  appears  that  the  "conspirators,"  as  the  Republican  lead 
ers  have  been  called  by  the  Democrats,  talked  with  Grant,  who 
was  then  in  Philadelphia,  over  Jay  Gould's  private  wire, 
of  itself  would  seem  to  be  no  great  crime.  See  Gibson,  A  Politi 
cal  Crime,  p.  55.  Gibson's  book,  it  may  be  remarked  here,  was 
prepared  under  the  eye  of  Mr.  Tilden. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  55 

kluxed"  and  thrown  from  the  track,  and  he  urgently 
asked  for  aid. 1  On  the  night  of  the  9th,  therefore, 
several  companies  were  ordered  to  Tallahassee ;  and 
further  dispositions  of  troops  in  the  disputed  states 
were  subsequently  made.  2  The  President's  action  in 
the  matter  aroused  a  storm  of  protest  at  the  time  and 
has  been  much  condemned  by  Democratic  writers 
since;  but,  whatever  the  motives  which  actuated  him, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  presence  of  the  troops 
went  far  towards  preserving  the  peace  not  only  in  the 
states  in  which  they  were  stationed  but  also  in  the 
entire  country. 

On  the  loth  the  President  issued  an  order  which 
was  copied  into  probably  every  newspaper  in  the  Uni 
ted  States.  It  was  as  follows  : 

"To  Gen.  W.  T.  Sherman,  Washington,  D.  C.  : 

"Instruct  General  Augur,  in  Louisiana,  and  General 
Ruger,  in  Florida,  to  be  vigilant  with  the  force  at 
their  command  to  preserve  peace  and  good  order,  and 
to  see  that  the  proper  and  legal^  Boards  of  Canvassers 
are  unmolested  in  the  performance  of  their  duties. 
Should  there  be  any  grounds  of  suspicion  of  fraudulent 
counting  on  either  side,  it  should  be  reported  and  de 
nounced  at  once.  No  man  worthy  of  the  office  of 
President  would  be  willing  to  hold  the  office  if  counted 
in,  placed  there  by  fraud;  either  party  can  afford  to 
be  disappointed  in  the  result,  but  the  country  cannot 
afford  to  have  the  result  tainted  by  the  suspicion  of 
illegal  or  false  returns.  U.  S.  GRANT/' 

The  President  was  anxious  to  secure  an  honest  set- 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  42,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  435-436. 

2  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  30,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  22  et  seq. 


56         The  Disputed  Election  of  1876 

tlement  of  the  contest  in  the  disputed  states,  and  with 
this  purpose  in  mind  requested  a  number  of  prominent 
Northern  men  to  go  down  and  witness  the  canvass. 
Unfortunately,  he  seems  to  have  had  no  confidence  in 
the  fairness  of  Democrats,  for  he  confined  his  requests 
to  Republicans.  The  Democrats,  on  their  side,  had  a 
corresponding  distrust  of  Republican  fairness ;  leading 
members  of  the  party  therefore  packed  their  grips  and 
journeyed  southward.  Within  a  few  days  after  the 
election  each  disputed  state  had  within  its  borders 
delegations  of  "visiting  statesmen,"  each  of  whom  was 
eager  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  the  nation  by  secur 
ing  the  vote  of  the  state  for  his  particular  candidate. 

Now  followed  a  period  of  the  most  intense  suspense 
and  excitement,  marked  also  by  ever-increasing  bitter 
ness  of  feeling.  During  the  first  part  of  this  period 
the  attention  of  the  country  was  fixed  upon  the  states 
in  which  the  result  was  being  contested.  To  give  an 
account  of  the  situation  in  these  states  will  be  the 
province  of  the  next  four  chapters. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  CONTEST  IN  FLORIDA 

^  Just  how  much  the  election  of  1876  lacked  of  being 
"fair  and  free"  in  the  state  of  Florida1  no  historian 
will  ever  be  able  to  determine.  That  it  did  fall  short 
of  this  ideal,  is  as  certain  as  the  fact  that  Hayes  was 
inaugurated,  or  that  the  supporters  of  Tilden  believed 
he  was  cheated  out  of  a  four  years'  residence  in  the 
White  House.  ^3oth  parties  were  about  equally  guilty, 
though  their  methods  in  the  main  were  different;  in 
timidation  was  the  chief  weapon  used  by  the  Demo 
crats,  and  frauds  in  the  conduct  of  the  election  and 
in  the  count  were  those  used  by  the  Republicans,  \ 

The  task  of  determining  the  extent  of  the  intimida 
tion  is  a  difficult,  in  fact,  a  hopeless  one.  It  is  all  the 
more  difficult  because  some  of  the  evidence  was 


1  The  Republican  state  convention  renominated  Marcellus  L. 
Stearns  for  governor  and  adopted  a  platform  indorsing1  the 
state  government  as  wise,  just,  and  economical.  The  Democra 
tic  convention  nominated  George  F.  Drew  for  governor,  and 
adopted  a  platform  arraigning  both  state  and  national  govern- 
me^ts  for  corruption,  extravagance,  and  oppression.  Senator  S. 
B.  Conover,  who  had  been  accused  of  peculation  by  the  Stearns 
Republicans,  ran  for  a  time  as  an  independent  Republican  candi 
date,  but  in  September  withdrew.  As  the  state  debt  was  but 
$1,329,757.68,  the  state  tax  levy  but  seven  mills  on  the  dollar, 
and  the  expenditures  but  $190,000  while  the  receipts  were  about 
$220,000,  the  Democratic  cry  of  extravagance  was  not  particularly 
effective. — Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,  pp.  294-295;  flies  of  the 
Jacksonville  Daily  Florida  Union. 


58  The  Hayes-Tilden 

probably  manufactured  out  of  whole  cloth;  for, 
both  before  and  after  the  election,  it  was  to  the  ad 
vantage  of  the  Republicans  to  make  it  appear  that 
intimidation  was  resorted  to  by  their  opponents.  Nev 
ertheless,  when  all  due  allowance  has  been  made  for 
the  work  of  the  "political  outrage  mills,"  the  fact 
remains  that  there  were  many  genuine  outrages.  The 
acceptance  by  Southern  Democrats  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  had  never  been  anything  save  mere  lip 
service ;  among  them  there  was  a  pretty  definitely  con 
ceived  determination  to  eliminate  as  much  of  the  negro 
vote  as  possible.  To  one  who  understands  the  full 
significance  of  this  fact,  even  though  he  may  be  ignor 
ant  of  the  details  of  the  particular  case,  the  conclusion 
that  intimidation  was  resorted  to  in  Florida  is  the  most 
natural  in  the  world.  But  the  conclusion  is  not  a 
mere  theory ;  it  rests  upon  an  overwhelming  mass  of 
evidence. 

The  methods  employed  were  various.  The  "Mis 
sissippi  plan,"  in  a  somewhat  milder  form  than  the 
original,  was  tried  in  some  districts. a  Armed  men 
presented  themselves  at  Republican  meetings,  de 
manded  half  of  the  time  for  their  own  speakers,  and 
frequently  subjected  the  Republican  speakers  to  inter 
ruption  and  abuse.  2  In  some  instances  negroes  were 

1  S.  R.  No.  611  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  45. 

2  Some  cases  had  an   amusing  side.     At   one  public  debate  a 
negro  speaker  was  continually  interrupted  by  a  white  man,   the 
burden   of  whose   remarks  was,   "How   many  chickens  have  you 
stole?"     When  the  negro  attempted  to  turn  the  matter  aside  by 
saying  he  would  like  to  have  some  chicken  and  would  be  glad, 
if  given  any,  to  return  the  favor,  the  white  man  took  the  badin 
age  as  an  assertion*  of  social   equality  and  assaulted  the  negro, 
who  did  not  dare  to  defend  himself  for  fear  of  the  other  whites. — 
Ibid,  p.  347.     For  other  instances  see  pp.  173,  201. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  59 

threatened  with  death  if  they  affiliated  with  Republi 
cans,  and  were  forced  to  join  Democratic  clubs.  * 
There  is  evidence  to  show  that  in  at  least  one  instance 
an  attempt  was  made  to  assassinate  a  prominent  Repub 
lican  candidate,  State  Senator  Meacham  of  Jefferson 
county. 2  In  a  few  districts  the  negroes  were  reduced 
to  such  a  state  of  fear  that  hardly  a  Republican  vote 
was  cast.  V  In  two  of  the  wilder  counties  conditions 
were  such  that,  at  least  after  the  election,  Republicans 
did  not  dare  travel  there  except  under  the  protection 
of  a  pass  from  the  Democratic  state  committee.  4  / 

In  general,  however,  intimidation  took  a  rather 
milder  form.  From  the  point  of  view  of  politics  it 
was  not  to  the  interest  of  the  Democratic  party  that 
much  real  violence  should  occur,  for  that  might 
arouse  the  North.  The  work  was  to  be  done  quietly; 
instances  like  those  given  above  were  therefore  excep 
tional.  Conditions  were  such  that  the  work  could  be 
done  quietly.  The  negroes,  Republicans  practically  to 
a  man,  were  almost  as  numerous  as  the  white  Demo 
crats  ; 5  but  they  were  still  timid  as  a  result  of  slavery 
and  were  quite  incapable  of  holding  their  own  in  a 
physical  contest  with  their  opponents.  Most  of  the 
white  Republicans,  the  leaders  of  the  blacks,  lived  in 
the  towns  and  villages,  and  hence  were  frequently 
unable  to  afford  much  assistance  to  their  sable  allies, 

1  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  241-253. 

2  Ibid,   pp.    335    et   seq. ;   Daily   Florida    Union,   Oct.    28. 

3  L.  c.,  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  352. 

4  Ibid,  pp.    16,   364-368,    420. 

5  The  number  of  negroes  according  to  the  census  of  1870  was 
91,689,  of  whites  96,057. 


60  The  Hayes-Til  den 

the  majority  of  whom  resided  in  the  sparsely  settled- 
country.  x  The  number  of  political  outrages  in  Flor 
ida  had  not  been  so  large  as  in  some  other  states,  but 
it  had  been  large  enough  to  instill  a  deep-seated  dread 
into  the  minds  of  the  freedmen. 2  In  many  cases, 
therefore,  it  was  natural  that  a  threat  alone  should 
prove  sufficient  to  cool  a  negro's  political  ardor. 
Furthermore,  the  vast  majority  of  the  blacks  were 
wholly  dependent  economically  upon  the  white  Demo 
crats  ;  and  this  fact  afforded  an  opportunity  of 
which  full  advantage  was  taken.  Negro  renters 
were  given  to  understand  that  if  they  made  themselves 
obnoxious  politically,  they  would  be  ousted.  /  Field 
hands  were  told  that  if  they  affiliated  with  the  Repub 
licans  they  would  not  be  employed.  3  The  following 
from  the  Monticello  Weekly  Constitution  of  November 
9th  is  significant : 

"The  election  is  now  over,  and  the  contest  is  decided, 
but  there  remains  a  very  importanj;  duty  for  the  citizens 
of  Jefferson  [county]  to  perform.  That  they  will  dis 
charge  it  impartially,  even  though  it  may  conflict  with 
their  individual  interests,  we  have  not  a  doubt.  It  is 
embraced  in  the  following  resolutions  adopted  and  fre 
quently  reiterated  by  the  reformers  during  the  cam 
paign;  and  wre  call  upon  every  man  to  enforce  them  to 
the  very  letter,  to  wit: 

"i.     That  we  pledge  ourselves,  each  to  the  other, 

1  See  H.  R.  R.  No.  140,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  pp.  77-78,  for  a 
somewhat  partisan   discussion   of   these  points. 

2  For  accounts  of  some  of  these  outrages  see  the  Ku  Klux 
Conspiracy  reports,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.   82-310. 

3  See,  for  instance,  S.  R.  No.  611  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess., 
pp.   336,   343. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  61 

by  our  sacred  honor,  to  give  the  first  preference  in  all 
things  to  those  who  vote  for  reform ;  and  that  we  give 
the  second  preference  in  all  things  to  those  who  do  not 
vote  at  all. 

"2.  That  we  affirm  the  principle  that  they  who 
vote  for  high  taxes  should  pay  them,  and  that  in  em 
ploying  or  hiring  or  renting  land  to  any  such  persons 
as  vote  for  high  taxes,  in  all  such  cases  a  distinction  of 
25  per  cent,  or  one-fourth,  be  made  against  such  per 
sons.  That  merchants,  lawyers,  and  doctors,  in  ex 
tending  credit  to  such  persons,  make  the  same  distinc 
tion. 

"3.  That  in  all  such  cases  we  extend  as  little  credit 
or  use  of  our  means  as  possible,  leaving  them  to  their 
chosen  friends. 

"  "4.  That  in  the  ensuing  year  we  positively  refuse  to 
re-employ  one  but  of  every  three  who  may  then  be  upon 
our  places  and  who  voted  against  reform  and  low 
taxes :  and  that  a  list  of  all  such  persons  be  published 
in  the  Constitution,  in  order  that  we  may  know  our 
friends  from  our  enemies. 

"5.  That  we  consider  it  dishonorable  and  unneigh- 
borly  for  any  farmer,  planter,  merchant,  lawyer,  doc 
tor,  or  any  other  person  to  violate  any  of  the  foregoing 
resolutions."  1 

In  many  cases  no  doubt  the  intimidators  were  con 
tent  with  keeping  the  blacks  away  from  the  polls,  but 
in  others  the  negroes  were  required  to  vote  the  Demo 
cratic  ticket.  The  device  of  numbered  ballots  was  used 


1  S.  R.  No.  611  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  46.  The 
use  of  the  device  indicated  by  these  resolutions  seems 
to  have  been  tolerably  common,  though,  for  obvious  rea 
sons,  not  many  such  resolutions  were  published.  This  was 
published  when  caution  was  deemed  unnecessary.  Probably  it 
would  not  have  appeared  a  day  or  two  later.  There  were  in 
stances  during  the  campaign  of  such  notices  being  posted  in 
public  places. 


62  The  Hayes-Til  den 

to  a  considerable  extent  to  insure  that  an  intimidated 
or  purchased  freedman  voted  as  instructed ;  individuals 
given  such  ballots  were  told  that  if  the  ballots  were 
not  found  in  the  boxes  a  reckoning  would  be  exacted 
later.  Thirty  such  ballots  were  voted  at  one  poll,  sev 
enteen  at  another,  and  smaller  numbers  at  others.  All 
were  counted,  although  their  use  was  contrary  to  the 
law  providing  for  a  secret  ballot. * 

There  was,  of  course,  another  side  to  the  matter  of 
intimidation.  Occasionally  pressure  appears  to  have 
been  brought  to  bear  by  Republican  negroes  upon 
negroes  who  showed  Democratic  leanings.  At  a  place 
in  Jefferson  county,  for  example,  a  white  Democrat 
named  Bellamy  and  a  contingent  of  negroes  under  his 
influence  were  attacked  on  their  way  to  a  polling- 
place  by  a  mob  of  negro  women  and  boys,  who  pelted 
them  with  sticks,  bricks,  and  other  missiles.  2  Probably 
there  were  more  serious  cases  than  this,  but  the  num 
ber  cannot  have  been  large,  for  the  number  of  Demo 
cratic  negroes  was  small ;  campaign  assertions  of 
Southern  Democratic  politicians  notwithstanding,  there 
has  never  been,  either  in  Florida  or  elsewhere,  any 
considerable  tendency  of  negroes,  when  left  to  them- 

CJ 

selves,  to  vote  the  Democratic  ticket. 

On  the  whole,  the  election  proper  passed  off  without 
any  considerable  disorder.  A  threatened  invasion  by 

1  S.  R.  No.  611  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  283-303  ;  Doc. 
Evidence,  pp.   141-144,  429-442.     It  was  admitted  by  Democratic 
counsel   before   the  canvassing   board   that   marked   ballots   were 
used,  and  the  right  of  employers  to  do  so  was  defended  ! — Ibid, 
p.    143. 

2  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  35,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  172 
et  seq.     See  also  pp.   355,   373,  377. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8?6  63 

Georgia  Democrats,  against  which  the  Republican 
state  committee  had  warned  the  people  and  against 
which  Governor  Stearns  had  fulminated  in  a  proclama 
tion,  a  did  not  take  place.  In  some  places  arms  were 
displayed  with  too  much  freedom,  and  Republican  chal 
lengers  appear  to  have  been  intimidated  at  a  few  polls,  2 
but  there  was  little  or  no  bloodshed. 

The  election  was  conducted  in  accordance  with  a 
law  passed  in  1868  and  amended  in  1872.  The  law 
provided  for  a  registration  prior  to  the  election  by  the 
clerk  of  the  circuit  court  in  each  county  and  for  a  sub 
sequent  revision  of  the  list  by  the  county  commis 
sioners.  Each  polling-place  was  in  charge  of  thjw 
inspectors  appointed  by  the  county  commissioners  and 
of  a  clerk  chosen  by  the  inspectors.  The  law  required 
these  inspectors  to  canvass  the  vote  before  adjourn 
ment.  Certificates  of  the  vote  must  be  sent  to  the 
clerk  of  the  circuit  court  and  to  the  county  judge.  On 
or  before  the  sixth  day  after  the  election,  the  clerk, 
the  county  judge,  and  a  justice  of  the  peace  must 
meet  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  and  canvass  the  returns 
of  the  county.  Should  the  clerk  or  the  judge  be 
absent  or  unable  to  attend,  the  sj>eriff_was^  empow- 
ered  to  act  in  his  place.  The  result  of  the  canvass 
was  then  to  be  recorded  by  the  clerk  in  a  book  kept 
by  him  for  that  purppse,  and  duplicate  certificates 
were  to  be  made  out  and  forwarded  to  the  secretary 
of  ^state  and  to  the  governor.  The  final  canvass  of 

1  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,  pp.  296-297. 

2   See,    for    example,     S.    R.    No.    611,    Part    2,     44th    Cong. 
2d  Sess.,  p.  258  ;  and  Documentary  Evidence,  pp.  412,  413,  420. 


64  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  returns  was  to  be  made  on  or  before. the 
day  after  election  by  the  board  of  state  canvassers, 
composed  of  the  secretary  of  st?1"^  the  ajtoraey-gen- 
eral,  and  the  comptmllsr^Qf  public  accounts,  or  of  "any 
two  of  them,  together  with  any  other  member  of  the 
cabinet  who  may  be  designated  by  them."  1 

The  members  of  this  board  were  Samuel  B.  McLin, 
the  secretary  of  state;  Dr.  Clayton  A.  Cowgill,  the 
comptroller ;  and  William  Archer  Cocke,  the  attorney- 
V"  general.  McLin,  a  native  of  Tennessee,  was  the  editor 
of  the  Tallahassee  Sentinel,  had  formerly  been  a  Whig, 
had  served  in  the  Confederate  army,  but  had  deserted 
from  it,  and  was  now  a  Republican  and  hence  what 
was  termed  a  "scalawag."  Dr.  Cowgill,  a  native  of 
Delaware,  had  been  a  surgeon  in  the  Union  army,  and 
was  likewise  a  Republican.  Cocke,  a  native  of  Vir 
ginia,  was  a  Democrat.  2 

The  board  did  its  work  under  the  eyes,  encourage 
ment,  and  advice  of  a  number  of  distinguished  poli 
ticians  from  outside  the  state.  On  November  I2th 
Mr.  W.  E.  Chandler  had  arrived  in  Tallahassee,  and 
had  soon  been  joined  by  ex-Governor  Noyes  of  Ohio, 
John  A.  Kasson  of  Iowa,  General  Lew  Wallace,  later 
famous  as  the  author  of  Ben  Hur,  Francis  C.  Barlow 
of  New  York,  and  other  Republicans,  some  of  them 
salaried  government  employees.  A  number  of  prom 
inent  Democrats,  including  ex-Governor  Brown  of 


1  The   law  is  given  In  S.  R.   No.   611,   Part  2,   44th  Cong.   2d 
Sess.,  pp.  21-28. 

2  Annual    Cyclopaedia,    1876,    p.     298 ;     Jacksonville    Florida 
Union,  Nov.  28th. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  65 

Georgia,  C.  W.  Woolley  of  Ohio,  and  John  F.  Coyle 
and  Mr.  Manton  Marble  of  New  York,  had  likewise 
gathered  in  the  Florida  capital  to  look  after  Demo 
cratic  interests.  Both  contingents  were  well  equipped 
with  the  "sinews  of  war,"  and  both  were  active  in 
advancing  the  interests  of  their  respective  candidates 
by  collecting  affidavits  and  testimony  and  by  acting  as 
counsel  before  the  canvassing  board. 

Some  of  "the  visiting  statesmen"  did  not  confine 
themselves  to  such  legitimate  work  as  that  just  de 
scribed.  On  the  part  of  the  Democrats,  negotiations , 
were  conducted  looking  to  the  purchase  of  one  or 
more  members  of  the  canvassing  board  and  perhaps 
of  the  governor ;  two  propositions  were  transmitted  to 
New  York;  a  reply  was  received  directing  one  of 
them  to  be  accepted;  but  in  the  end  the  attempt  at 
bribery  failed.  On  the  other  side,  the  Republicans  are 
accused  of  having  stiffened  the  faltering  by  assurances 
that  in  case  Hayes  were  counted  in,  he  would  "take 
care  of"  his  Southern  friends. 1 

The  canvassing  board  met  and  began  its  work  on 
the  27th  of  November.  Six  visiting  statesmen  from 
each  party  were  admitted  to  the  proceedings,  and  this 
number  was  subsequently  increased  to  ten.  The  same 
courtesy  was  also  extended  to  Governor  Stearns,  who 
was  .a  candidate  for  re-election,  to  his  opponent, 
George  F.  Drew,  and  to  General  Brannan,  commander 
of  the  Federal  troops  in  Florida. z 


1  See  chapter  XIII. 

2  Proceedings  of  the  board,  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  2,  44th  Cong. 
2d   Sess.,   pp.   414-416. 


66  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Despite  the  assertions  of  partisan  writers,  there 
was  at  first  little  question  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
board's  powers.  In  1871  in  the  case  of  Bloxham  vs. 
Board  of  State  Canvassers  it  had  been  held  that  the 
board's  powers  were  "mainly  ministerial ;" 1  but  this 
decision  had  been  rendered  before  the  amendment  of 
1872,  which  provided  that  "If  any  such  returns  shall 
be  shown  or  shall  appear  to  be  so  irregular,  false,  or 
fraudulent  that  the  board  shall  be  unable  to  determine 
the  true  vote  for  any  such  officer  or  member,  they 
shall  so  certify,  and  shall  not  include  such  return  in 
their  determination  and  declaration ;  and  the  secretary 
of  state  shall  preserve  and  file  in  his  office  all  such  re 
turns,  together  with  such  other  documents  and  papers 
as  may  have  been  received  by  him  or  said  board  of 
canvassers."  In  1874,  in  fact,  the  Democratic  member 
of  the  board,  Attorney-General  Cocke,  had  written  a 
formal  opinion  to  the  effect  that  this  amendment  con 
ferred  discretionary  powers,  and  the  board  in  can 
vassing  the  vote  that  year  had  acted  in  accordance  with 
his  view  of  the  matter.  z  The  board  adopted  the  same 
view  now;  received  written  protests,  arguments,  affi 
davits,  and  documentary  proofs ;  heard  witnesses ;  and 


1  13  Florida,  p.  73.     The  court  held,  however,  that  the  board 
possessed  the  "quasi-judicial"  power  of  determining  whether  pa 
pers   purporting   to    be   returns   were   genuine   and   properly   au 
thenticated. 

2  Testimony  of  Attorney-General  Cocke,  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part 
2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  27-29.     The  opinion  is  given  on  page 
27.     Gibson  in  A  Political  Crime,  pp.  27-28,  and  Bigelow  in  his 
Life  of  Tilden,  II,  pp.  23-24,  charge  that  the  exercise  of  discre 
tionary  powers  was  a   bare-faced   usurpation,   that   it  was   gen 
erally  recognized  that  the  board's  powers  were  purely  ministerial. 
Gibson  quotes  the  decision  of  1871,  but  fails  to  state  that  it  was 
rendered  before  the  amendment. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  67 

ultimately  exercised  their  discretionary  powers  by  re 
jecting  returns. 1 

/  Seven  public  sessions  were  held,  and  then  on  Tues 
day,  December  5th,  at  a  private  session,  the  returns 
were  finally  canvassed.  t  The  board  did  its  work  in  an  ~\ 
unpardonably  partisan  manner,  though  in  so  doing,  as 
was  remarked  at  the  time,  it  merely  followed  examples 
recently  set  by  the  Democratic  majority  in  the  national 
House  of  Representatives.  In  the  case  of  Platt  vs. 
Goode,  the  Democratic  representatives,  against  the 
earnest  protest  of  the  Democratic  chairman  of  the 
committee  which  investigated  the  case,  had  thrown  out 
an  entire  Virginia  county,  which  had  given  the  Repub 
lican  contestant  an  overwhelming  majority,  for  the 
sole  reason  that  a  few  words  of  attestation  upon  the 
return  were  omitted,  although  a  copy  correctly  certi 
fied  and  attested  was  offered  in  evidence. 2  In  the 
opinion  of  General  Barlow,  who  was  perhaps  the  fairest 
witness  of  the  Florida  count,  this  precedent,  "far  more 
flagrantly  wrong"  than  any  decision  "made  in  the 
Florida  case,"  greatly  affected  the  judgment  of  the 
Republican  members  of  the  canvassing  board.  3 

1  See   the   written   arguments   submitted   to   the   board,    Ibid, 
Documentary  Evidence,   pp.   1-18.     The  Democratic  counsel  took 
a  middle  view  on  the  question. — See  pp.   16-17. 

2  See  Congressional  Record,  44th  Cong.  1st  Sess.,  pp.  4882  et 
seq. ;  and  Digest  of  Election  Cases,  1871  to  1876,  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc. 
No.  52   45th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  650  et  seq.     For  another  almost 
equally  flagrant  case  see  Abbott  vs.  Frost,   Ibid,  pp.   594  et  seq. 
Abbott  was  seated,   and  was  later  one  of  the  Democratic  mem 
bers    of    the    electoral    commission.        As    such    he   drew   up    the 
scathing  protest  of  the  "Seven."     This  House,  it  should  be  said, 
was  not  the  only  one  in  which  contests  have  been  decided  in  a 
partisan  way;  the  practice  is  a  common  one. 

3  Letter  of  Barlow  to  President  Grant,  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  4, 
44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  12. 


68  The  Hayes-Til  den 


On  the  face  of  the  returns,  as  the  Republican  mem 
bers  of  the  board  conceived  the  returns,  the  vote  for  the 
Hayes  electors  was  24,337;  f°r  the  Tilden  electors 
24,292. 1  /However,  only  26  counties  were  canvassed 
according  to  the  face  of  the  returns;  in  all  the  others 
the  board  exercised  discretionary  powers,  rejected  cer 
tain  precincts  and  one  whole  county,  and  thereby 
raised  the  majority  for  the  lowest  Hayes  elector  over 
the  highest  Tilden  elector  to  924.  2  t 

To  set  forth  in  detail  how  this  result  was  reached 
would  require  several  hundred  pages  of  print.  A 
few  instances  will. serve  to  show  the  spirit  in  which 
the  work  was  done. 

Baker  county  was  one  of  the  chief  bones  of  conten 
tion.  From  that  county  there  were  three  returns, 
only  one  of  which  was  made  out  in  seeming  legal 
form.  As  already  explained,  the  law  provided  that 
"on  the  sixth  day  after  an  election,  or  sooner  if  the 
returns  shall  have  been  received,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  county  judge  and  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  to 
meet  at  the  office  of  the  said  clerk,  and  take  to  their 
assistance  a  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  said  county 
(and  in  case  of  the  absence,  sickness,  or  other  disa 
bility  of  the  county  judge  or  clerk,  the  sheriff  shall  act 
in  his  place)  and  shall  publicly  proceed  to  canvass 
the  votes  given  for  the  several  offices  and  persons  as 
shown  by  the  returns."  It  appears  that  the  county 
judge,  Elisha  W.  Driggers,  notified  the  clerk,  M.  J. 


1  S.  R.  No.   611,   Part   2,  44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  p.   17. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  12  and  18-19. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jb  69 

Cox,  to  meet  with  him  on  Monday,  November  I3th,  the 
sixth  day  after  the  election ;  but  Cox,  who  was  a  Demo 
crat,  associated  with  himself  a  justice  named  Dorman, 
and  on  the  loth,  while  the  judge  was  out  of  the 
county,  the  two,  the  sheriff  refusing  to  act  with  them, 
made  up  a  return.  This  return  was  not  regular,  for 
it  had  not  been  made  by  all  the  officers  required  by 
law.  On  the  I3th  the  clerk,  having  meanwhile  grown 
uneasy  because  of  the  irregularity  of  his  proceeding, 
requested  the  judge  to  join  with  him  in  making  another 
canvass.  This  the  judge  refused  to  do  on  the  ground 
that  the  clerk's  action  in  making  the  previous  canvass 
constituted  a  refusal  to  act  with  the  judge.  The 
clerk  and  the  justice  thereupon  proceeded  to  make  a 
second  canvass,  which,  however,  was  no  more  reg 
ular  than  the  first.  Now  came  the  turn  of  the  judge 
and  the  sheriff.  These  two  worthies,  in  accordance 
with  a  plan  already  formed,  met  that  evening,  together 
with  a  justice  especially  commissioned  for  the  purpose 
by  the  governor,  in  the  clerk's  office,  to  which  the 
deputy  clerk  had  given  the  judge  the  key,  and  pro 
ceeded  to  make  a  new  canvass  of  the  votes.  In  so 
doing  they  threw  out,  on  the  plea  of  fraud,  two  pre 
cincts  which  had  given  Democratic  majorities ;  this 
they  had  no  legal  right  to  do,  although  it  appears 
that  such  a  practice  had  occasionally  been  followed  in 
the  past.  The  three  then  made  out  certificates,  reg 
ular  on  their  face,  and  forwarded  them  as  required 
by  law.  It  was  by  counting  this  return  that  the  Re- 


70  The  H  ayes-Til  den 

publicans  made  it  appear  that  on  the  face  of  the  re 
turns  the  state  had  gone  for  Hayes.  * 
/  The  state  canvassing  board  did  not,  however,  accept 
the  Driggers  return.  Instead  they  exercised  discre 
tionary  power,  canvassed  the  county  by  precincts,  and 
counted  the  vote  of  the  whole  county  as  it  had  actually 
been  cast,  143  votes  for  the  Hayes  electors  and  238 
votes  for  the  Tilden  electors.  In  this  proceeding  the 
Democratic  member,  Judge  Cocke,  concurred.  2  / 

Had  the  board  stopped  here,  the  state  would  have 
been  given  to  Tilden,  but  they  did  not  do  so.  They 
proceeded  to  go  behind  the  returns  in  other  counties. 
In  Hamilton  county  83  Democratic  and  58  Republi 
can  votes  were  thrown  out,  because  they  had  been 
illegally  added  to  the  return  after  it  had  been  com 
pleted  and  signed.  In  the  same  county  Jasper  Pre 
cinct  No.  2,  which  gave  323  votes  for  the  Democratic 
electors  and  185  votes  for  the  Republican  electors, 
was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  the  inspectors  had  not 
completed  the  canvass  until  after  an  adjournment,  had 
allowed  unauthorized  persons  to  handle  the  ballots  and 
assist  in  the  count,  and  had  next  day  signed  a  return 
which  they  had  neither  made  nor  verified.  3  The  at 
torney-general  concurred  in  this-  action,  but  later,  after 


1  The  evidence  bearing  on  Baker  County  is  very  voluminous. 
See  index  to  Baker  County  on  p.   470  of  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  2, 
44th   Cong.    2d  Sess. ;    Documentary  Evidence,   pp.    76-82 ;   H.   R. 
Mis.  Doc.  No.  35,  Part  1,   44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  284-300;  and 
index  to  testimony  regarding  Baker  County  on  p.   12   of  H.   R. 
Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  5,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess. 

2  See  minutes  of  board  in  Senate  report  above  cited,  p.  9. 
3  Ibid,. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  71 

consultation  with  his  party  associates,  protested 
against  it  in  a  written  protest. 1 

In  the  town  of  Key  West,  Precinct  No.  3,  which 
gave  401  Democratic  votes  and  59  Republican  votes, 
was  thrown  out  on  the  plea  that  the  inspectors  had 
adjourned  before  the  completion  of  the  canvass,  and 
had  completed  it  the  next  day  at  a  different  place, 
without  public  notice.  In  addition,  there  was  proof 
that  there  had  been  threats  of  violence  and  that  the 
Republican  challengers  had  been  intimidated.  The 
board  did  not,  however,  take  this  proof  into  account, 
holding  that  this  was  a  matter  over  which  the  law 
defining  their  powers  did  not  give  them  jurisdiction.  2 
Judge  Cocke  at  first  concurred  in  throwing  out  the 
poll,  but  later  wished  to  change  his  vote,  and  did  de 
nounce  the  board's  action  in  his  written  protest.  3 

In  Jackson  county,  Campbellton  Precinct  and 
Friendship  Church  Precinct,  both  of  which  gave  con 
siderable  Democratic  majorities,  were  thrown  out. 
The  first  was  rejected  "on  account  of  the  violation  of 
the  election  laws  by  the  inspectors  in  removing  the 
ballot-box  from  the  election  room  at  the  adjournment 
for  dinner  into  an  adjoining  store,  and  leaving  it 
unsealed  and  concealed  from  the  public  during  said 
adjournment;  in  not  counting  the  ballots  at  the  close 
of  the  polls  and  comparing  them  with  the  number  of 
names  on  the  poll-lists,  and  because  only  seventy-six 
Republican  votes  were  counted  out  of  the  ballot-box, 

1  S.  R.  No    611,  Part  2,   44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  pp.   33  and  41. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  9-10. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   6,   14,   3«,  31,  33. 


j2  The  Hayes-Tilden 

whereas  133  persons  swear  that  they  voted  the  full  Re 
publican  ticket."  The  other  precinct  was  thrown  out 
because  the  inspectors  placed  the  ballot-box  in  such  a 
position  as  to  be  out  of  sight  of  the  voter  and  of  the 
public;  because  they  did  not  complete  the  canvass  at 
the  polling  place  but  in  a  bed-room  two  miles  away; 
and  because  they  did  not  count  the  ballots  and  com 
pare  them  with  the  names  on  the  polling-list.  The 
attorney-general  opposed  the  rejection  of  either  of 
these  precincts. 1 

The  vote  of  Manatee  county  was  thrown  out  on 
the  plea  that  there  had  been  an  "entire  absence  of  any 
and  all  legal  steps  in  preparation  for  the  election  and 
in  holding  the  same."  In  the  main  this  was  true.  In 
the  preceding  September  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court 
had  resigned,  and  the  person  appointed  by  the  governor 
to  succeed  him  was  either  unable  to  give  bond  or  pur 
posely  refrained  from  doing  so.  In  consequence  no 
registration  was  made,  and  the  election  was  an  in 
formal  one  at  which  262  votes  had  been  cast  for  the 
Tilden  electors  and  only  26  for  the  Hayes  electors.  By 
the  Democrats  it  was  claimed  that  the  situation  was  a 
result  of  a  Republican  conspiracy,  but  whether  or  not 
such  was  the  case  the  evidence  does  not  conclusively 
show ;  it  is  possible  that  it  was  in  part  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  county  was  a  remote  one  on  the  edge  of  the 
Everglades  and  communication  with  it  was  slow  and 
difficult.  The  exclusion  of  the  county  was  objected 
to  by  the  attorney-general. 2 

1  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.   7,  10,  42. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   32-33. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  73 

Numerous  changes  of  less  importance  were  made, 
in  most  of  which  all  three  members  concurred.  Some 
of  these  changes  were  favorable  to  the  Democrats, 
but  did  not  affect  the  general  result.  That  result,  as 
finally  promulgated,  showed  a  substantial  majority 
for  Hayes,  the  election  of  the  Republican  state  ticket, 
which  had  run  some  three  hundred  votes  behind  the 
national  ticket,  and  also  that  of  both  of  the  Republican 
candidates  for  Congress. 1 

As  has  already  been  stated,  the  canvass  was  con 
ducted  in  a  highly  partisan  manner.  In  every  im 
portant  instance  in  which  votes  were  thrown  out  the 
advantage  inured  to  the  Republicans.  Furthermore, 
the  majority  of  the  board  refused  to  eliminate  other 
returns,  the  validity  of  which  was  questioned,  when  by 
so  doing  they  would  have  seriously  diminished  the 
Republican  vote.  There  were  many  such  cases,  but  a 
few  of  the  most  conspicuous  will  suffice.  Proof  was 
brought  to  show  that  at  Archer  Precinct  No.  2,  Ala- 
chua  county,  219  names  had  been  fraudulently  put 
upon  the  polling-list  and  the  same  number  of  votes 
added  to  the  Republican  majority.  2  Proof  was  also 
adduced  to  show  that  at  Richardson's  School  House 
Precinct,  Leon  county,  73  "little  joker"  Republican  bal- 

1  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  9-10,  18-19, 
32-33. 

2  Ibid,  see  index  pp.  469-470  ;  Documentary  Evidence,  pp.   24 
9t  seq.  ;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  35,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  see 
index  pp.   304-305  ;   contested  election  case  of  Finley  vs.   Bisbee 
H.  R.  R.  No.  95,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess. ;  and  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No    31 
!!?  Fo°ong'  3d  Sess"  especially  testimony  of  L.  G.  Dennis,  I.  pp. 
477,   483,  554,    853.     Dennis  was  one  of  the  Republican  election 
officers,    and    two   years   later,    out   of   revenge    for   having  been 
removed  from  office  by  the  Administration,  made  a  "confession" 
to  the  Potter  Committee. 


74  The  Hayes-Tilden 

lots  had  been  smuggled  into  the  ballot-box,  while  to 
cover  up  the  trick  the  poll-list  had  been  correspond 
ingly  increased.1  /There  were  irregularities  of  form 
in  the  return  from  Duval  county,  which  gave  a  large 
Republican  majority;2  there  was  proof  that  there  had 
been  irregularities  in  the  conduct  of  the  election  in 
certain  Republican  precincts  in  Jefferson  county  and 
elsewhere.  3  Yet  in  all  these  cases,  as  well  as  in  sev 
eral  others,  the  majority  of  the  board  voted  to  can 
vass  the  returns  without  change.  4  / 

What  the  result  would  have  been  if  the  returns  had 
been  canvassed  by  an  unpartisan  board  it  is  impos 
sible  to  say  with  certainty.  At  the  same  time  it  is 
clear  that  if  none  of  the  returns  had  been  rejected  and 
if  in  Baker  county  the  return  containing  all  the  pre 
cincts  had  been  substituted  for  the  Driggers  return, 
the  result  would  have  been  a  majority  for  the  lowest 
Tilden  elector  over  the  highest  Hayes  elector  of  93 
votes. 5  f  How  nearly  these  returns  corresponded  to 
the  votes  in  the  ballot-boxes  can  never  be  ascertained. 
Frauds  in  the  count  and  return  of  votes  were  unques 
tionably  committed  by  both  sides.  In  this  kind  of 
work  the  Republicans  had  the  advantage  of  having  a 
small  majority  of  the  election  officers,  but  this  was 
probably  counterbalanced  by  the  ease  with  which 
shrewd  Democrats  could  hoodwink  the  illiterate  ne- 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  35,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  1-80; 
H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sees.,  II.,  pp.  94-96. 

2  Documentary   Evidence,   pp.   113    et  seq. 

3  Ibid,   p.    261    et    seq. 

4  Senate    report    above    cited,    pp.    1-43. 

5  Ibid,  pp.    402-409. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  75 

groes  who  acted  as  election  officers  in  many  places.  * 
On  the  whole,  it  is  not  improbable  that  an  unpartisan 
board,  acting  on  the  same  theory  of  its  powers  as  did 
the  actual  board,  would  have  held  that  the  returns 
did  not  in  all  cases  correspond  to  the  votes  in  the  bal 
lot-boxes,  would  have  thrown  out  some  returns  con 
trary  to  the  interests  of  each  party,  but  would  in  the 
end  have  found  a  small  majority  for  Tilden.  The 
least  partisan  man  who  witnessed  the  count,  namely 
/General  Barlow,  took  that  view  of  the  case.-  He  had 
gone  to  Florida  at  the  request  of  Grant,  he  was  a 
Republican,  but  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  on  the 
evidence  the  board  should  give  Tilden  a  majority  of 
from  30  to  55.  He  even  urged  one  of  the  Republican 
members  of  the  board  to  adopt  such  a  course,  but 
without  effect. 2  Whether  General  Barlow's  opinion 
in  fhe  case  was  in  any  measure  due  to  a  tendency 
sometimes  noticeable  in  high-minded  persons  to  con 
cede  all  doubtful  points  to  an  opponent,  it  is  impos 
sible  to  say ;  certain  it  is  that  his  opinion,  though  admit 
tedly  based  on  only  part  of  the  evidence,  is  entitled  to 
very  great  weight. 

But  there  is  another  aspect  of  the  case  which  must 
not  be  lost  sight  of  by  the  investigator  who  would 
arrive  at  the  true  merits  of  the  tangled  election  of 
1876  —  an  aspect  which  the  canvassing  board  deemed 


1  For  an  expression  on  this  point  see  H.  R.  R.  No.  140,  45th 
Cong.  3d  Sess.,  p.  84. 

2  See  two  letters  written  by  Barlow  after  his  return  from 
Florida,  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  4.  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess..  pp.  12-13; 
also  his  testimony  before  the  Potter  Committee,  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc. 
No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.  1361,  1388,  1408. 


76  The  Hayes-Tilden 

lay  without  its  powers  and  one  not  taken  into  account 
by  General  Barlow.  /  While  a  fair  count  of  the  votes 
cast  in  the  state  of  Florida  might  have  resulted  in  a 
small  majority  for  Tilden,  a  free  election  would  with 
far  greater  certainty  have  resulted  in  a  substantial 
majority  for  Hayes.  /The  board  did  not  throw  out 
votes,  not  even  "marked  ballots,"  on  the  score  of 
intimidation ;  yet  no  one  familiar  with  the  evidence 
and  with  the  attitude  of  the  Southern  Democrats  to 
ward  negro  suffrage  will  for  a  moment  doubt  that  there 
was  sufficient  intimidation  to  change  the  whole  result. 
To  be  sure,  there  was  no  such  sweeping  suppression 
of  the  negro  vote  as  there  was  in  Louisiana,  South 
Carolina,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  some  other  states ; 
but  when  the  result  was  so  close,  that  was  not  neces 
sary.  When  all  due  allowances  are  made,  therefore, 
it  is  a  not  unfair  conclusion  that  in  equity  the  electoral 
votes  of  the  state  of  Florida  belonged  to  Hayes. 

The  labors  of  the  canvassing  board  were  completed 
on  the  night  of  December  5th.  On  the  following  day, 
the  date  set  by  Federal  law,  the  Republican  electors 
met  and  cast  their  votes  for  Hayes  and  Wheeler. 1 
The  result,  properly  certified,  was  then  dispatched  to 
the  president  of  the  Senate. 

The  Democratic  electors,  although  declared  elected 
by  no  properly  constituted  authority,  likewise  met  on 


1  The  subject  of  the  alleged  ineligibility  of  Humphreys,  one  of 
the  Republican  electors,  will  be  discussed  in  the  chapter  on  the 
work  of  the  Electoral  Commission.  It  was  also  claimed  that 
Charles  H.  Pearce,  another  elector,  was  ineligible,  but  the  con 
tention  was  ultimately  given  up.  See  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part  4, 
44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  14. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  77 

the  same  day  and  cast  their  votes  for  Tilden  and 
Hendricks.  The  result,  irregularly  certified  by  Judge 
Cocke,  the  attorney-general,  was  also  forwarded  to 
Washington. 1 

Seemingly  the  situation  was  now  sufficiently  com 
plicated,  but  it  was  to  become  much  more  so.  George 
F.  Drew,  the  Democratic  candidate  for  governor,  peti 
tioned  the  state  supreme  court  for  a  mandamus  to  com 
pel  the  canvassing  board  to  canvass  the  returns  of  the 
votes  for  governor  in  a  strictly  ministerial  way.  The 
court,  a  majority  of  whom  were  Democratic  in  sym 
pathy,  2  granted  the  petition.  In  so  doing  the  court 
dissented  from  the  view  "that  the  board  of  state  can 
vassers  is  a  tribunal  having  power  strictly  judicial, 
such  as  is  involved  in  the  determination  of  the  legality 
of  a  particular  vote  or  election."  "All  the  acts  which 
this  board  can  do  under  the  statute,"  the  court  held, 
"must  be  based  upon  the  returns;  and  while  in  some 
cases  the  officers  composing  the  board  may,  like  all 
ministerial  officers  of  a  similar  character,  exclude  what 
purports  to  be  a  return  for  irregularity,  still  everything 
they  are  authorized  to  do  is  limited  to  what  is  sanc 
tioned  by  authentic  and  true  returns  before  thern.^ 
....  They  have  no  general  power  to  issue  sub 
poenas,  to  summon  parties,  to  compel  the  attendance 
of  witnesses,  to  grant  a  trial  by  jury,  or  to  c$)  any  act 
but  determine  and  declare  who  has  been  elected  as 


1  Both  these  certificates  of  votes  are  given  in  Electoral  Count, 
pp.   11-13. 

2  Testimony   of   Geo.    P.    Raney,   Democratic   attorney   general 
under  Drew,  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  2,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess., 
p.  59. 


78  The  Hayes-Tilden 

shown  by  the  returns."  The  board  must  confine  itself 
to  ascertaining  and  certifying  the  votes  "actually  cast," 
and  must  not  assume  the  power  to  go  behind  the  re 
turns  in  an  effort  to  ascertain  the  "legal  vote,"  this 
being  a  matter  upon  which  the  courts  alone  were 
competent  to  decide.  On  December  23d  the  manda 
mus  was  issued. 1 

Under  protest  of  the  Republican  members  the  board 
reconvened,  and  after  a  second  canvass  of  the  returns 
announced  that  Drew  had  received  24,179  votes  and 
Stearns  23,984  votes.  In  so  doing  the  majority  mem 
bers,  against  the  wishes  of  the  Democratic  member, 
counted  the  Driggers  return  from  Baker  county  as 
being  the  only  one  regular  in  form,  and  threw  out  the 
vote  of  Clay  county  because  the  return  was  so  irreg 
ular  that  they  could  not,  from  it  alone,  ascertain  the 
true  vote.  Then,  although  the  writ  had  merely  di 
rected  them  to  recanvass  the  vote  for  governor,  the 
board,  or  rather  the  two  Republican  members,  re-ex 
amined  the  vote  for  electors,  and  reported  "that  a  re- 
canvass  of  them,  according  to  the  said  decision,"  would 
show  that  the  Republican  electors  had  received  major 
ities  averaging  about  211  votes.2  This  result  was 
made  possible  by  the  fact  that  Stearns  had  run  some 
hundreds  of  votes  behind  the  Republican  national 
ticket. 

/  The  matter  by  no  means  rested  here.  The  Demo 
cratic  electors  had  already  petitioned  the  court  of  the 

1  The  proceedings  in  this  suit  are  given  in  S.  R.  No.  611,  Part 
2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  388-401. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   400-401. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  79 

second  judicial  circuit  for  a  writ  of  information  in 
the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto  against  the  Republican 
electors,  and  a  summons  had  been  served  upon  the 
respondents  just  before  they  voted.  The  suit  was  later 
prosecuted  to  a  conclusion,  and  on  January  25th  the 
judge  of  the  court,  P.  W.  White,  a  Democratic  parti 
san,  issued  an  order  to  the  effect  that  the  Democratic 
electors  had  been  rightfully  chosen. 1  /  The  case  was 
then  appealed,  but  was  never  again  brought  to  trial.  2 

Meanwhile  the  Democrats  had  displayed  zeal  in  yet 
another  field  of  activity.  On  the  2d  of  January  their 
candidate  for  governor  was  inaugurated  at  Tallahas 
see  without  opposition;3  the-newly  elected  legislature 
was  convened ;  and  "an  act  to  procure  a  legal  can 
vass  of  the  electoral  vote  of  the  state  of  Florida  as 
cast  at  the  election  held  on  the  7th  day  of  November, 
A.  D.,  1876,"  was  passed  and  approved.  The  act  cre 
ated  a  canvassing  board  composed  in  much  the  same 
manner  as  the  previous  one  had  been,  and  it  ordered 
the  members  of  this  new  board  to  convene  and  recan- 
vass  the  vote.  The  board,  all  the  members  of  which 
were  Democrats,  did  as  ordered,  and  on  January  iQth 
certified  the  election  of  the  Democratic  electors  by 
majorities  over  the  highest  Hayes  elector  of  from  87 
to  90  votes. 4 

A  few  days  later  the  legislature  formally  declared 
that  the  Democratic  electors  had  been  dulv  elected. 


1  H.  R.  R.  No.  143,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  8  ;  Part  2,  p. 
11;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  35,  Part  3,  pp.  81-82. 

2  Proceedings  of  the  Electoral  Commission,  p.   56. 

3  The  Nation,  XXIV,  p.  19  ;  Florida  Union,  Jan.  3d  and  4th. 

4  H.  R.  R.  No.  35,  Part  3,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  70-79. 


8o        The  Disputed  Election  of  l8jd 

It  also  directed  the  governor  to  make  and  certify 
"three  lists  of  the  names  of  the  said  electors,"  together 
"with  an  authenticated  copy  of  this  act,"  and  transmit 
the  same  to  the  president  of  the  Senate.  The  electors 
themselves  were  directed  to  meet  and  make  and  sign 
three  additional  certificates  of  all  the  votes  given  by 
them  on  the  6th  of  December/and  transmit  one  of  the 
same  to  the  United  States  district  judge  and  the  other 
two,  one  by  messenger  and  the  other  by  mail,  to  the 
president  of  the  Senate. l  These  things  were  done,  2 
and  the  Florida  farce  was  complete. 

1  H.  R.  R.  No.  35,  Part  3,   44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  pp.  80-81 

2  Ibid,  pp.   70-71. 


CHAPTER  VII 

BULLDOZERS   AND    RETURNING   OFFICERS    IN    LOUISIANA 

In  perhaps  no  other  state  in  the  Union  has  there 
ever  been  such  a  disorderly  condition  of  affairs  as 
existed  in  Louisiana  during  the  years  from  1866  to 
1877.  Wholesale  corruption,  intimidation  of  negro 
voters  by  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  political 
assassinations,  riots,  revolutions  —  all  these  were  the 
order  of  the  day  in  Louisiana  politics. 

That  this  reign  of  lawlessness  exceeded  that  in  any 
other  of  the  reconstructed  states  was  in  part  due  to 
the  nature  of  the  population.  The  white  inhabitants 
were  in  large  measure  French  and  Spanish  Creoles, 
who  had  both  the  virtues  and  the  weaknesses  of  their 
ancestors.  The  ante-bellum  society  of  Louisiana,  and 
particularly  of  New  Orleans,  had  been  polite  and  even 
brilliant ;  yet  the  state  had  been  one  of  the  least  law- 
abiding  of  any  of  the  long-settled  communities.  The 
custom  of  the  duello  was  firmly  fixed,  and  in  the 
metropolis  frequent  bloody  encounters  took  place 
beneath  the  moss-hung  "duelling  oaks"  in  what  is  now 
the  city  park. l  Occasionally  this  lack  of  respect  for 


1  Thompson,  The  Story  of  Louisiana,  p.   248  ;   King,  New  Or 
leans,   pp.   292-299. 


82  The  Hayes-Tilden 

law  revealed  itself  in  political  matters,  as  (in  the 
notorious  Plaquemine  frauds  of  1844 x  and  the  New 
Orleans  riot  of  1855,  when  for  a  time  the  city  was  in 
the  hands  of  two  rival  factions,  who  seized  public 
buildings  and  erected  barricades.  2  The  freedmen, 
despite  the  presence  of  a  considerable  number  of 
educated  blacks  in  New  Orleans,  were  on  the  average 
less  intelligent  than  in  most  of  the  former  slave  states. 
This  was  in  part  due  to  conditions  which  had  existed 
during  slavery  days.  The  number  of  slaves  had  been 
exceedingly  large,  and  most  of  them  had  lived  on  great 
plantations  where  civilizing  contact  with  the  superior 
race  had  been  unusually  slight.  Furthermore,  many 
of  the  slaves  had  been  persons  of  desperate  or  criminal 
character  who  in  punishment  had  been  sold  "down  the 
river." 

As  elsewhere  in  the  South,  the  whites  of  Louisiana 
did  not  take  kindly  to  emancipation.  They  took  still 
less  kindly  to  enfranchisement.  The  idea  that  the 
negro  was  "divinely  created  to  be  servant  to  the  white" 
had  so  long  been  instilled  into  the  Southern  mind  that 
it  was  an  article  of  faith.  The  possibility  of  the  black 
man's  occupying  any  other  position  was  a  thing  un 
thinkable.  So  long  as  the  negro  remained  in  his  "place" 
the  Southern  white  man  was  in  a  sense  his  friend,  but 
any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  freedman  to  assert  equal 
privileges  became  as  a  red  rag  to  a  bull.  As  the  negro 
was  now  "the  nation's  ward,"  he  was  a  convenient 


1  Sargent's  Life  of  Clay,  p.   254. 

2  Gayarrg,  History  of  Louisiana,  IV,  p.  679  ;  Thompson,  p.  255. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  83 

object  on  which  the  unthinking  could  vent  their  im 
potent  hatred  for  the  North.  This  tendency  was  vastly 
increased  by  the  outrageous  manner  in  which  the 
negro — too  often  at  the  instigation  of  Northern  bureau 
agents — abused  his  new-found  liberty.  As  a  result 
of  these  and  other  causes,  there  followed  throughout 
the  South  a  period  replete  with  instances  of  brutal 
outrage  and  murder.  In  Louisiana,  owing  partly  to 
reasons  already  described,  the  number  of  these  crimes 
was  particularly  great. 1 

An  argument  frequently  employed  in  justifying  the 
outrages  on  the  freedmen  is  that  the  whites  were 
goaded  into  it  by  the  evils  of  negro  domination.  The 
argument  holds  good  in  part,  but  only  in  part,  for 
unhappily  outrages  were  committed  before  the  suffrage 
was  conferred  upon  the  blacks,  before  such  a  step  was 
even  favored  by  any  considerable  number  of  Northern 
people.  Had  such  outrages  never  occurred,  it  mav 
well  be  doubted  whether  sweeping  negro  suffrage 
would  have  been  bestowed ;  for  the  argument  that  the 
negro  needed  a  weapon  with  which  to  defend  himself 
was  unquestionably  a  deciding  factor  with  thousands 
of  persons  to  whom  the  partisan  political  motive  did 
not  appeal. 

Louisiana  was  one  of  the  states  in  which  the  whites 

1  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  30,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  458-540,  con 
tains  a  partial  list  (not  wholly  reliable)  of  the  murders  and 
outrages.  See  also  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  43,  39th  Cong-.  1st  Sess  ;  H 
R.  R.  No.  16,  39th  Cong.  2d  Sess. ;  H.  R.  R.  No.  101,  43d  Cong.  2d 
Sess.,  various  other  congressional  documents,  and  the  newspapers 
of  the  time.  My  own  conclusions  are  in  large  measure  based  up 
on  files  of  the  New  Orleans  newspapers. 


84  The  Hayes-Tilden 

did  not  wait  to  see  the  fruits  of  negro  rule  before 
falling  upon  the  hapless  freedmen.  The  first  important 
conflict  took  place  in  New  Orleans  in  July,  1866,  as  a 
result  of  an  attempt  of  the  radicals,  with  the  consont 
of  the  governor  and  a  judge  of  the  state  supreme  court, 
to  reconvene  the  constitutional  convention  of  1864  in 
order  to  enfranchise  the  blacks.  Mayor  Monroe  made 
preparations  to  suppress  the  convention ;  a  riot  occur 
red  ;  and  a  most  inhuman  massacre  resulted,  in  which 
about  forty  negroes  and  white  radicals  were  killed  and 
about  136  were  wounded.1 

The  next  important  race  conflicts  occurred  in  the 
late  summer  and  fall  of  1868.  In  the  spring  of  that 
year  an  election  was  held  at  which  the  new  constitu 
tion  was  ratified  and  at  which  H.  C.  Warmoth,  Repub 
lican  candidate  for  governor,  was  elected  by  a  majority 
of  over  26,000.  Later  in  the  year  the  Knights  of  the 
White  Camelia,  an  organization  similar  to  the  Ku 
Klux,  entered  upon  a  campaign  of  violence  and  intim 
idation,  with  the  result  that  the  Republican  majority  of 
the  spring  was  transformed  into  a  Democratic  plurality 
of  about  46,000  for  Seymour.  This  astonishing  re 
versal  was  later  explained  by  Republican  members  of  a 
congressional  investigating  committee  in  the  following 
language : 

1  The  convention  .appears  to  have  had  no  legal  right  to  re 
assemble,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  mayor's  action  was 
unwarranted.  For  an  account  of  the  affair  and  an  un 
qualified  condemnation  of  the  mayor  see  Cox,  Three  Decades 
of  Federal  Legislation,  pp.  430-432.  H.  R.  R.  No.  16,  39th 
Cong.  2d  Sess.  contains  a  vast  amount  of  testimony  bearing  upon 
the  subject.  The  massncre  was  used  with  great  effect  by  the 
Radical  Republicans  in  the  North.  See  also  Rhodes,  History  of 
the  United  States  from  the  Compromise  of  1850,  V,  pp.  611-613. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  85 

"The  testimony  shows  that  over  2,000  persons  were 
killed,  wounded,  and  otherwise  injured  in  Louisiana 
within  a  few  weeks  prior  to  the  Presidential  election  in 
November,  1868;  that  half  the  state  was  overrun  by 
violence ;  and  that  midnight  raids,  secret  murders,  and 
open  riot  kept  the  people  in  constant  terror  until  the 

Republicans  surrendered  all  claim But  the  most 

remarkable  case  is  that  of  St.  Landry,  a  planting  parish 
on  the  river  Teche.  Here  the  Republicans  had  a 
registered  majority  of  1,071  votes.  In  the  spring  of 
1868  they  carried  the  parish  by  678.  In  the  fall  they 
gave  Grant  no  vote,  not  one  —  while  the  Democrats 
cast  4,787,  the  full  vote  of  the  parish,  for  Seymour  and 
Blair.  Here  occurred  one  of  the  bloodiest  riots  on 
record,  in  which  the  Ku  Klux  killed  and  wounded  over 
200  Republicans,  hunting  and  chasing  them  for  two 
days  and  nights  through  fields  and  swamps.  Thirteen 
captives  were  taken  from  the  jail  and  shot.  A  pile  of 
twenty-five  dead  bodies  was  found  half-buried  in  the 
woods.  Having  conquered  the  Republicans  and  killed 
and  driven  off  the  white  leaders,  the  Ku  Klux  captured 
the  masses,  marked  them  with  badges  of  red  flannel, 
enrolled  them  in  clubs,  made  them  vote  the  Democratic 
ticket,  and  then  gave  them  a  certificate  of  the  fact."  1 

A  detailed  account  of  the  political  history  of  Louis 
iana  from  1868  to  1876  is  in  this  connection  unneces 
sary.  In  general  the  period  was  one  in  which  the 
party  in  opposition,  consisting  of  most  of  the  white 
inhabitants,  pursued  a  policy  of  intimidation,  even  to 

1  H.  R.  R.  No.  261,  43d  Cong.  pp.  11-12.  Quoted  by  Cox,  pp. 
551-552.  Cox  thinks  the  statement  "a  good  deal  exaggerated, 
especially  as  to  the  number  killed,"  but  "the  failure  of  the 
negroes  to  vote  can  be  explained  only  on  the  theory  that  a  reign 
of  terror  existed."  28  parishes  which  in  1868  gave  Grant  but 
5,360,  gave  35,010  to  the  Republican  candidate  for  auditor  in 
1870,  when  the  election  was  a  comparatively  peaceful  one. 


86  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  extent  of  assassination ;  while  the  party  in  power, 
consisting  chiefly  of  negroes  and  white  carpet-baggers, 
resorted  to  election  frauds  and  to  unblushing  misap 
propriation  of  public  funds.  The  value  of  property 
greatly  decreased  ;T  the  payment  of  taxes  fell  more  than 
$2,000,000  in  arrears ;  and  the  state  debt  was  increased 
to  enormous  proportions.  2  In  1870  the  Republicans 
quarreled  among  themselves ;  and  Governor  Warmoth 
went  over  to  the  Conservatives,  as  the  Democrats  were 
called.  A  period  of  great  confusion  followed.  The 
election  of  1872  was  claimed  by  both  parties ;  but  the 
Republicans  were  able  through  the  complaisance  of 
United  States  District  Judge  Durell,  who  issued  the 
famous  "midnight  restraining  order,"  to  obtain  the  all- 
important  aid  of  the  Federal  troops,  and  to  install 
William  Pitt  Kellogg  as  governor.  McEnery,  the 
Democratic  claimant,  was  also  inaugurated,  but  after 
a  few  weeks  found  himself  obliged  to  abandon  tem 
porarily  all  efforts  to  assert  his  authority.  On  the 
1 4th  of  September,  1874,  however,  the  White  League, 

Trhis  was  due   in  part  to  the  war,   to  the  emancipation   of 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  slaves,  to  the  disorder 
Incident  to  the  change  from  one  labor  system  to  another,  to  the 
panic  of  the  early  '70s,  but  in  large  measure  to  misgovernment. 

2  The  increase  in  the  debt  was  not  wholly  the  result  of  actual 
stealing  from  the  state,  although  the  amount  stolen  was  large 
enough.  Expenditures  were  increased  as  a  result  of  the  bad 
condition  of  the  levees,  of  subsidies  to  companies  (fraudulent  in 
many  cases  but  not  always  so)  engaged  in  undertakings  which 
it  was  hoped  would  help  the  development  of  the  state,  etc. 
thermore,  tax  receipts  fell  off  as  a  result  of  the  decrease  in  tl 
value  of  property,  while  the  state  bonds  were  floated  much  below 
par  Financiers  had  little  faith  in  Southern  bonds,  partly  be 
cause  of  the  unsettled  conditions  in  that  section,  and  partly 
because  in  the  period  before  the  war  so  many  of  the  states  in 
that  section  had  repudiated  their  debts.  What  faith  they  had 
was  mostly  misplaced,  for  after  the  states  were  "redeemed  a 
large  proportion  of  the  bonds  were  repudiated. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  87 

an  armed  quasi-secret  organization  consisting  of  Con 
servatives,  rose  against  the  Kellogg  government;  a 
battle  ensued  in  the  streets  of  New  Orleans ;  and 
Kellogg  and  his  supporters  were  forced  to  take  refuge 
in  the  custom-house.  Once  more  the  President  inter 
fered,  and  Kellogg  was  reinstated  by  Federal  bay 
onets.  During  the  ensuing  two  years  little  better  than 
a  state  of  anarchy  existed  in  parts  of  Louisiana ;  in  a 
few  parishes  the  officials  were  either  driven  out  or 
murdered,  sometimes  because  they  were  of  bad  char- 
acter  or  incompetent,  but  in  some  instances  solely 
because  they  were  negroes  or  white  Republicans. l 

Such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  when  the  cam 
paign  of  1876  opened.  The  Republicans  were  the  first 
to  put  a  ticket  in  the  field.  Their  convention  met  at 
New  Orleans  on  the  27th  of  June  and  after  some 
stormy  sessions  nominated  S.  B.  Packard  for  governor 
and  renominated  C.  C.  Antoine  for  lieutenant-gov 
ernor.  Packard,  a  native  of  Maine,  had  for  some 
years  been  United  States  marshal  of  Louisiana, 'and 
had  been  closely  associated  with  the  custom-house 
coterie  of  Republicans  who  managed  the  state's  affairs. 
Antoine  was  a  negro,  and  is  said  to  have  been  a  native 
of  San  Domingo.  The  Democrats  held  their  conven 
tion  at  Baton  Rouge  on  the  24th  of  July,  and  selected 
as  their  candidates  General  F.  T.  Nicholls  of  Assump 
tion  Parish  and  Louis  A.  Wiltz  of  Orleans.  Nicholls 


1  This  sketch  is  based  chiefly  upon  the  hundreds  of  pages  of 
testimony  contained  in  S.  R.  No.  457,  42d  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  and 
H.  R.  R.  Nos.  261  and  101,  43d  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  and  upon  files 
of  the  New  Orleans  Picayune  and  New  Orleans  Times. 


88  TheHayes-Tilden 

was  a  graduate  of  West  Point,  and  had  lost  both  an 
arm  and  a  leg  while  fighting  in  the  Confederate  army 
in  Virginia,  but  at  this  time  was  engaged  in  the 
practice  of  law.  In  their  platform  the  Democrats 
denounced  Republican  rule,  both  state  and  national, 
affirmed  their  acceptance  of  the  last  three  amendments 
to  the  Federal  Constitution,  pledged  a  free  and  fair 
election,  and  promised  equal  educational  advantages 
to  both  races. 1 

The  manner  in  which  the  campaign  that  followed 
was  conducted  by  the  two  parties  was  affected  to  a 
considerable  degree  by  the  nature  of  the  election  laws. 
These  laws  had  been  framed  with  the  end  in  view  of 
enabling  the  party  in  power  to  neutralize  the  effect  of 
violence  and  intimidation  on  the  part  of  their  Demo 
cratic  opponents ;  for,  as  an  observer  has  remarked, 
"What  the  Republicans  lacked  of  the  lion's  skin  they 
eked  out  with  the  fox's  tail."2  At  the  head  of  the 
electoral  system  created  by  these  laws  stood  a  state 
returning  board,  consisting  of  five  members,  chosen 
originally  by  the  senate  from  all  parties,  but  with  the 
provision  that  the  members  themselves  should  fill  va 
cancies.  This  tribunal  had  the  discretionary  power  of 
inquiring  under  certain  restrictions  into  the  conduct 
of  elections,  and  of  rejecting  the  vote  of  any  precinct 
or  parish  wherein  force,  or  fraud,  or  fear  so  prevailed 
as  materially  to  affect  the  result.  The  power  just 


1  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,  pp.  481-483,  and  493  ;  files  of  New 
Orleans  Times  and  Republican. 

2  Benjamin  F.  Butler's  report  as  a  member  of  the  Potter  Com 
mittee,   H.  R.   R.   No.   140,   45th  Cong.   3d  Sess.,  p.   96. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  89 

described  was  an  unusual  one;  yet,  considered  as  a 
remedy,  it  was  to  a  certain  extent  inadequate,  for 
while  it  enabled  the  board  to  throw  out  votes,  it  did 
not  enable  them  to  add  votes  which  would  have  been 
polled  had  there  been  no  violence  and  intimidation. 1 

This  fact  furnished  the  Democrats  an  opportunity 
of  which  they  appear  to  have  cunningly  taken  advan 
tage  in  this  campaign.  Their  plan  involved  two  fea 
tures.  2  They  purposed  to  carry  on  in  most  sections 
of  the  state  a  canvass  that  was  entirely  devoid  of 
violence.  They  even  took  pains  to  propitiate  the 
negroes ;  employed  colored  preachers  and  other  leaders 
to  speak  for  them;  gave  barbecues  with  music  and 
other  attractions ;  and  in  some  districts  in  promises  of 
equality  "outstripped  the  Republicans."  3  This  policy 
was  especially  pursued  in  those  parishes  which  usually 
gave  Democratic  majorities ;  in  such  parishes  the  party 
managers  strove  hard  to  prevent  the  occurrence  of  any 
act  of  violence  which  would  give  the  Republican  re 
turning  board  a  pretext  for  rejecting  the  vote;  and  in 
the  main  they  were  successful  in  this  effort,  although 
outrages  were  occasionally  committed  by  Democrats 
whose  hot  blood  got  the  better  of  their  discretion.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  a  few  selected  parishes,  such  as 

1  Act  98  of  1872,  given  in  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  44th  Cong.  2d 
bess.,  pp.   160-168.     The  author  would  not,   of  course,   have   the 
reader  believe  that  he  would  for  a  moment  advocate  such  a  law 

2  This  theory  was  set  forth  by  the  Republican  "visiting  states 
men'    in  their  report  to  the  President,  Ibid,  pp.  4-9.     The  Demo 
crats  vigorously  attacked  the  theory,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  it 
is  a  true  one.     Facts  which  appear  to  me  to  be  conclusive  are 
presented  in  succeeding  pages. 

3  Report  of  Democratic  members  of  Potter  Committee,  H    R 
R.  No.   140,   45th  Cong.   3d  Sess.,  p.   29. 


90  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Ouachita,  East  and  West  Feliciana,  East  Baton  Rouge, 
and  Morehouse,  the  Democrats  pursued  entirely  differ 
ent  tactics.  These  were  parishes  in  which,  since  the 
great  majority  of  voters  were  negroes,  the  Democrats 
had  everything  to  gain  and  nothing  to  lose.  If,  by  a 
process  of  "bulldozing"  in  any  one  of  these  parishes, 
they  should  succeed  in  destroying  the  Republican  ma 
jority,  they  would,  if  the  vote  were  allowed  to  stand, 
be  gainers  to  the  amount  of  the  majority  destroyed 
plus  whatever  majority  they  managed  to  secure.  If, 
on  the  contrary,  they  succeeded,  but  the  vote  were 
rejected,  then  the  Republicans  were  at  least  deprived 
of  their  normal  majority.  So  it  was  with  the  other 
alternatives ;  in  any  case  it  was  "heads  I  win,  tails  you 
lose"  for  the  Democrats. l 

Conditions  in  other  respects  were  favorable  for 
carrying  out  the  Democratic  plans.  From  numerous 
bitter  experiences  in  the  past  the  negroes  had  learned 
that  when  the  whites  entered  upon  a  campaign  of 
intimidation,  it  was  safest  to  yield  peacefully  and  grace 
fully  to  the  inevitable.  When,  therefore,  the  white 
rifle-clubs  began  to  ride  about  the  country  at  night 
singing  such  ditties  as, 

"A  charge  to  keep  I  have,  a  God  to  glorify ; 

If  a  nigger  don't  vote  with  us,  he  shall  forever  die."  2 


1  This  was  not  a  new  scheme.     In  1872,  when  the  Warmoth 
election  officers  were  in  control,  cases  occurred  where  Democratic 
commissioners  appear  to  have  stuffed  ballot-boxes  at  Republican 
polls  in  order  to  furnish  a  pretext  on  which  the  returning  board 
might  reject  such  polls. — S.  R.  No.  457,  42d  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  p.  77. 

2  S.  R.  No.  701,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  19. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  91 

many  freedmen  needed  no  further  warning,  but  joined 
Democratic  clubs,  attended  Democratic  barbecues,  and 
ate  Democratic  roast  ox  with  the  best  of  them.  Others 
who  were  slightly  more  stubborn  were  induced  to 
change  their  politics  or  at  least  to  refrain  from  voting 
by  being  threatened  with  loss  of  employment.  Yet 
others  were  whipped  or  otherwise  maltreated,  while  a 
few,  more  unfortunate  still,  were  roused  from  their 
beds  at  night  and  brutally  murdered.  Thanks  to  the 
work  of  past  years,  however,  the  amount  of  actual 
violence  needed  was  comparatively  small.  In  those 
parishes  where  there  had  been  recent  conflicts  the  task 
of  intimidation  was  particularly  easy.  * 

The  success  of  the  Democratic  policy  in  the  selected 
parishes  was  so  great  that  the  Republicans,  seeing  that 
a  free  election  was  impossible,  decided  in  some  cases  to 
make  merely  nominal  contests  and  to  devote  them 
selves  to  collecting  evidence  of  the  bulldozing  in  order 
that  the  returning  board  might  have  grounds  for  re 
jecting  the  parishes  either  in  whole  or  in  part.  Thus, 
says  a  congressional  investigator,  there  was  "presented 
this  singular  spectacle :  That  in  portions  of  the  state 
an  active  and  vigorous  campaign  was  going  on  be 
tween  the  parties  and  in  other  portions  of  the  state 
there  was  substantially  no  campaign  at  all."  2  The 
Democrats  later  claimed  that  the  Republicans  gave  up 
the  fight  in  these  parishes  because  the  negroes  volun- 


1  These  .conclusions  rest  upon  practically  the  whole  mass  of 
testimony  collected  by  the  Congressional  committees. 

2  H.  R.  R.  No.   140,  45th  Cong.   3d  Sess.,  p.   96. 


92  The  Hayes-Til  den 

tarily  joined  Democratic  clubs,  but  the  argument  seems 
hardly  a  reasonable  one.  All  the  bulldozed  parishes 
had  two  years  before  given  large  Republican  major 
ities,  and  there  is  no  real  evidence  to  show  that  they 
would  not  have  done  so  again  had  it  not  been  for 
disorders  and  outrages  during  the  campaign  itself  or 
during  the  year  preceding  it  by  which  the  negroes  had 
been  thoroughly  cowed. 

The  Republicans  did  not,  however,  rest  all  their 
hopes  of  victory  upon  their  success  in  collecting  evi 
dence  of  bulldozing.  Another  matter  to  which  they 
devoted  much  attention  in  the  course  of  the  campaign 
was  that  of  registration.  The  appointment  of  the 
supervisors  of  registration  and  their  clerks  was  in  the 
hands  of  Governor  Kellogg,  and  he  appointed  Repub 
licans  almost  exclusively.  x  Many  of  those  chosen  for 
the  work  already  held  state  or  Federal  offices;  some 
of  them  were  men  of  low  character,  one,  for 
example,  having  formerly  been,  it  was  said,  the  "roper- 
in"  for  a  snake  show.  2  The  registration  officers  were 
regarded  by  the  Republican  campaign  committee  as 
under  their  direction;  and  detailed  instructions  were 
issued  to  the  supervisors  by  D.  J.  M.  A.  Jewett,  secre 
tary  of  the  committee  on  canvassing  and  registration. 
These  instructions  informed  the,  supervisors  that  they 
were  expected  "to  register  and  vote  the  full  strength 
of  the  Republican  party,"  and  that  results  "once  ob- 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  34,,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  713, 
et  seq. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  443,  1049,  etc.;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong. 
3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.  1105,  1109,   1129,  1464,  1467,  etc 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  93 

tained,"  their  "recognition"  would  "be  ample  and  gen 
erous."  * 

Thus  encouraged,  the  supervisors  worked  with  great 
effectiveness.  In  fact,  shortly  before  the  election  their 
lists  showed  a  total  of  115,268  colored  voters  or  al 
most  8,000  more  than  the  number  of  colored  men  of 
voting  age  according  to  the  census  taken  in  1880.  '2 
Most  of  this  excess  appears  to  have  been  in  the  city  of 
New  Orleans,  where,  owing  to  the  laxity  of  the  reg 
istration  officers  in  failing  to  prevent  double  registra 
tion  and  especially  in  failing  to  strike  off  the  names 
of  negroes  who  had  died  or  who  had  removed  from 
the  ward,  a  negro  population  of  57,647  yielded  the 
astonishing  registration  of  23,495.  That  these  figures 
were  subsequently  decreased  by  3,368,  and  that  at  the 
election  the  Republicans  cast  but  14,801  votes  for  their 
highest  elector,  or  about  their  real  strength,  was  due 
almost  wholly  to  the  vigilance  of  the  Democrats,  not 
to  that  of  the  registration  or  election  officers. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  registration  officers  were 
active  in  helping  to  keep  down  the  white  registration 
to  the  lowest  possible  limit.  In  New  Orleans,  for 
example,  they  worked  with  the  Republican  managers 
in  executing  a  very  successful  scheme  for  detecting 
illegal  Democratic  registration.  About  29,000  '"sew 
ing  machine  circulars"  were  sent  by  the  Republican 
campaign  committee  to  the  addresses  of  registered  per- 


nrrl     ^     R'     M1S'     DOC'     N°'     31«     45th     COn8"-     3d     SeSS-     *•     PP-      1074- 

1076,  1441. 

2  The  registration  figures  are  given  in  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  34 
Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  494. 


94  The  Hayes-Tilden 

sons  not  known  to  the  Republican  leaders ;  many 
thousands  of  these  circulars  were  returned  by  the  let 
ter  carriers  as  "not  found ;"  canvassers  were  then  sent 
out  to  make  a  second  search ;  and  when  they  reported 
that  a  given  person  did  not  live  at  the  address  given 
on  the  registration  books,  his  name  was  stricken  off. 
Many  mistakes  were  made,  and  some  of  the  names 
were  later  restored,  but  the  white  registration  was  de 
creased  by  about  4,500.  The  claim  was  later  set  up 
that  many  thousands  of  Democrats  were  thereby  de 
prived  of  their  right  to  vote,  but  the  evidence  does  not 
bear  out  the  claim. 1 

Some  days  passed  after  the  election  before  the  fig 
ures  of  the  vote  actually  cast  could  be  ascertained. 
At  first  the  Republicans  were  inclined  to  believe  that 
they  had  obtained  a  majority,  2  but  after  word  had  been 
received  from  the  outlying  parishes  it  was  found  that 
the  Democratic  plan  had  worked  so  beautifully  that 
on  the  face  of  the  returns  the  highest  Tilden  elector 
would  receive  about  84,000  votes  and  the  lowest  about 
83,000  votes,  while  the  highest  Hayes  elector  would 
receive  only  about  76,000  votes  and  the  lowest  about 
74,000  votes.  3  Upon  the  strength  of  this  showing  the 
Democratic  press  of  the  country  with  great  positive- 
ness  claimed  the  state  for  Tilden.  But  the  Republican 

1  For  some  of  the  testimony  regarding  registration  see  H  R 
Mis  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.  1001,  1051-1056! 
1064;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  34.  Part  2.  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp. 
311,  319,  329,  396,  471,  484,  500,  537,  539,  555,  599,  603,  635,  713, 

2  Testimony  of  Jewett  before  Potter  Committee,   H.  R.  Mis 
Doc.   No.    31,    45th   Cong.    3d    SPSS.,    I,    p.    1441. 

3  H.   R.   R.   No.   140,    45th   Cong.    3d   Sess.,   p.   97. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  95 

managers  transmitted  words  of  cheer  to  their  brethren 
in  other  states.  The  returning  board,  said  they,  has 
not  yet  performed  its  work.  Wait  till  it  gets  through 
with  the  parishes  in  which  there  has  been  wholesale 
intimidation,  and  then  see  if  Tilden  has  a  majority. 1 

As  in  the  case  of  Florida,  Louisiana  at  once  became 
the  goal  for  many  prominent  politicians  of  both 
parties.  John  Sherman,  James  A.  Garfield,  Eugene 
Hale,  E.  W.  Stoughton,  and  other  Republicans  hurried 
to  New  Orleans  by  special  request  of  the  President, 
and  were  joined  there  by  some  who  had  not  been  so 
honored.  Not  to  be  outdone,  a  goodly  number  of 
Democrats,  among  whom  were  John  M.  Palmer,  Ly- 
man  Trumbull,  Samuel  J.  Randall,  J.  R.  Doolittle, 
Henry  Watterson,  and  Oswald  Ottendorfer,  obeyed 
telegrams  received  from  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  chairman 
of  the  Democratic  national  committee,  and  repaired  to 
the  Crescent  City  on  a  like  mission. 

On  the  day  after  the  Democratic  statesmen  reached 
their  destination  they  addressed  to  the  Republican  vis 
itors  a  letter  suggesting  that,  "  in  view  of  the  un 
happy  controversies  which  have  heretofore  arisen  from 
the  action  of  the  returning  board  of  the  state,"  the 
two  contingents  unite  in  exerting  their  influence  "in 
behalf  of  such  a  canvass  of  the  votes  actually  cast  as 
by  its  fairness  and  impartiality  shall  command  the 
respect  and  acquiescence  of  the  American  people." 


1  E.  g.,  telegram  of  A.  Dumont,  chairman  Rep.  State  Com., 
in  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  42,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  16.  Also  of 
Kellogg  in  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,  p.  486. 


96  The  Hayes-Tilden 

In  their  reply  the  Republican  visitors  declined  to  hold 
such  a  conference  and  pointed  out  that  they  were  pres 
ent  merely  as  witnesses,  "without  power  or  legal  influ 
ence  over  the  result,  or   over  the   means  by   which, 
under  the  laws  of  Louisiana,  the  result  is  to  be  de 
termined."     They  further  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  canvassing  board  possessed  power  to  exer 
cise  judicial  as  well  as  ministerial  duties,  and  that  to 
reduce  the  whole  question  to  the  merely  clerical  duty  of 
counting   "the  votes   actually   cast,"   as  distinguished 
from  the  votes  "legally  cast,"  would  involve  "a  nul 
lification  of  the  provisions  of  the  laws  of  Louisiana." 
They  assured  the  Democratic  statesmen,  however,  that 
"we  join  heartily  with  you  in  counsels  of  peace  and 
in  the  expression  of  an  earnest  desire  for  a  perfectly 
honest  and  just  declaration  of  the  results  of  the  recent 
election  in  Louisiana  by  its  lawfully  constituted  author 
ities,  and  we  may  add  that  we  know  of  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  such  declaration  will  be  made."     Next  day 
the     Democrats     returned     to     the     charge     with     a 
letter  in  which  they  explained  that  by  the  expression 
"votes  actually  cast"  they  had  not  meant  to  include 
"votes  illegally  cast."     They  disclaimed  any  intention 
to   interfere   with   the  legally   constituted   authorities, 
but   supposed   it   was   not   improper   "to   remind   the 
authorities  of  this  state,  by  our  mere  presence  at  least, 
that  there   are   certain   rules  of  fairness   and  justice 
which  underlie  all  constitutions  and  laws,  and  upon 
whose  observance  must  depend  the  acquiescence  of  the 
people   of  all   parties   in   the   declared   result  of   the 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  97 

Louisiana  election."  They  frankly  confessed  they  had 
no  such  faith  in  the  returning  board  as  was  evinced 
by  the  Republican  visitors.  "We  deem  it  not  im 
proper,"  they  said  in  this  connection,  "to  remind  you 
that  the  very  presence  in  this  city  of  so  many  citizens 
from  all  parts  of  the  Union  at  this  moment  seems  to 
be  evidence  of  a  widely-prevalent  distrust  of  the  ac 
tion  of  this  board,  and  that  such  distrust  has  this 
foundation,  at  least,  that  the  constitution  of  the  board 
has  not  been  changed  since  its  returns  were  set  aside 
by  a  Congressional  committee  of  which  the  Republican 
candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  was  a  member." 
The  Republicans  still  declined,  however,  to  enter  into 
any  combination  for  concerted  action. 1 

Unquestionably  the  Democrats  had  good  reason  for 
distrusting  the  board,  while  the  Republicans  took  en 
tirely  too  hopeful  a  view  when  they  announced  that 
they  knew  no  reason  for  doubting  that  a  perfectly 
honest  and  just  declaration  of  the  result  would  be 
made.  To  begin  with,  the  board  as  then  constituted 
consisted  entirely  of  Republicans ;  for  though  the  law 
provided  that  all  parties  should  be  represented  on  it, 
the  sole  Democratic  member  had  resigned,  and  the 
remaining^four  members  had  ignored  the  provision 
requiring  them  to  fill  the  vacancy.2  Then,  too,  the 
character  of  the  four  was  by  no  means  such  as  to  in 
spire  any  great  degree  of  confidence.  J.  Madison 


1  This  correspondence  is  all  given  in  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No    2    44th 
Cong.    2d    Sess.,   pp.    31-35. 
2   See  post  p.   100. 


98  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Wells,  the  president,  was  a  native  of  Louisiana,  had 
to  his  honor  remained  a  Union  man  when  the  state 
seceded,  had  been  chosen  lieutenant-governor  under 
the  Banks  reconstruction  plan,  and  had  later  become 
governor,  but  in  1867  had  been  removed  by  General 
Sheridan,  who  had  characterized  him  as  "a  political 
trickster  and  a  dishonest  man."  1  Thomas  C.  Ander 
son,  also  a  native  Louisianian,  was  known  to  have  used 
his  influence  as  a  state  senator  in  obtaining  a  subsidy 
for  a  navigation  company  in  which  he  had  a  large 
pecuniary  interest. 2  The  other  members  were  both 
mulattoes.  One  of  them,  Louis  M.  Kenner,  was  a  sa 
loon-keeper,  and  at  one  time  had  been  indicted  for 
larceny,  but  upon  confession  had  been  allowed  to  es 
cape  punishment.  3  The  other,  Gadane  Casanave,  was 
an  undertaker  and  the  most  respectable  member  of 
the  board;  but  even  he  was  not  a  man  of  the  highest 
intelligence  or  the  finest  moral  grain.  4  The  board  as 
a  whole  had  been  severely  criticised  for  its  conduct  on 
a  previous  occasion  by  a  committee  sent  out  by  the  na 
tional  House  of  Representatives  to  investigate  the  elec 
tion  of  1874.  Two  of  the  Republican  members  of  the 
committee  united  with  the  Democratic  members  in  de 
claring  the  action  of  the  board  in  that  election  "unjust, 
illegal,  and  arbitrary."5  The  remaining  Republican 

1  Cited  by  The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.  309.     For  other  opinions  of 
Wells  see  Harper's  Weekly,  XX,  p.  988;  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  44th 
Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  6  ;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  34,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d 
Sess.,  pp.  506,  508,  509;  Ibid,  No.  42,  pp.  143-163,  178-183. 

2  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  34,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  589- 

3  Ibid,  p.  598  ;  also  Part  1,  pp.  59  et  seq. 

4  Ibid,  pp.   52  et  seq. 

5  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  261,   43d  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.   3. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  99 

members  G.  F.  Hoar,  W.  A.  Wheeler,  and  W.  P.  Frye, 
reported  that  the  board  had  reversed  the  result  as  indi 
cated  by  the  votes  actually  in  the  ballot-boxes ;  but  in 
consideration  of  the  board's  good  intentions,  Messrs. 
Hoar,  Wheeler,  and  Frye  simply  expressed  "emphatic 
disapprobation  of  its  proceedings"  and  "dissent  from 
the  view  it  took  of  its  own  powers  and  duties/'  and  pro 
nounced  its  conduct  "illegal"  in  "attempting  to  cure 
one  wrong  by  another."  1 

The  law  required  that  the  board  should  meet  within 
ten  days  after  the  date  of  the  election.  On  Friday, 
the  1 7th  of  November,  the  members  assembled  and 
held  a  secret  conference.  On  the  next  day  they  met 
again  and  adopted  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  an 
invitation  should  be  extended  to  each  delegation  of 
"distinguished  gentlemen  from  other  states"  to  send 
five  members  to  witness  the  proceedings.  The  invi 
tation  was  accepted,  and  the  visiting  statesmen  took 
turns  in  attending  the  meetings  of  the  board.  2 

At  the  first  public  session  on  the  following  day  the 
board  announced  the  rules  which  were  to  govern 
their  proceedings.  The  rules  provided  that  the  board 
should  "first  take  up,  canvass,  and  compile"  the  re 
turns  from  those  parishes  to  which  no  objections  had 
been  made,  and  should  then  proceed  to  consider  the 
returns  from  the  disputed  parishes;  that  all  protests 
and  arguments  from  candidates  or  their  attorneys 
should  be  made  in  writing;  that,  except  by  members 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  261,  43d  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  28. 

2  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  35-36. 


TOO  The  Hayes-Tilden 

of  the  board,  all  interrogatories  to  witnesses  must  be 
in  writing  and  must  previously  have  been  submitted 
to  opposing  counsel  for  cross-interrogatories ;  that  can 
didates,  or  attorneys  representing  candidates,  could  be 
present  only  when  contested  cases  were  being  heard; 
that  whenever  the  members  of  the  board  should  deem 
it  desirable,  they  might  "go  into  secret  session  to 
consider  any  motion,  argument,  or  proposition  which 
may  be  presented  to  them ;"  that,  finally,  after  all  the 
evidence  was  in,  the  board  should  make  the  final  de 
termination  in  secret  session.  After  the  rules  had 
been  read  Judge  Spofford,  counsel  for  one  of  the  Dem 
ocratic  candidates,  made  an  urgent  plea  for  entire 
publicity,  but  this  the  board  refused  to  grant. l 

A  like  answer  was  given  to  five  protests  which  had 
been  filed  by  the  Democratic  counsel  at  the  last  ses 
sion.  These  protests  dealt  with  such  matters  as  the 
judicial  powers  of  the  board,  the  vacancy  in  its  mem 
bership,  and  its  right  under  the  law  to  canvass  the 
returns  for  electors.  All  the  answers  were  reasonable 
with  the  exception  of  the  one  dealing  with  the  sub 
ject  of  filling  the  vacancy.  The  law  provided  that  all 
parties  should  be  represented  and  that  "in  case  of  any 
vacancy  by  death,  resignation,  or  otherwise  of  either 
of  the  board,  then  the  vacancy  shall  be-fiHed  by  the 
residue  of  the  board."  The  members  of  the  board 
now  held  that  the  law  provided  for  the  original  organ 
ization  only,  "that  all  political  parties  at  that  time  or 
ganized  were  represented,  that  there  was  then  no  party 


1    S.   Ex.   Doc.   No.    2,   44th  Cong.   2d   Sess.,   p.    40. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  101 

known  as  the  Democratic-Conservative  party,  that 
"there  was  no  provision  in  the  law  for  a  reorganization 
of  the  board,  so  it  could  not  have  been  contemplated 
that  the  board  should  be  changed  to  suit  shifting  polit 
ical  organizations  that  might  subsequently  be  made."  -1 
This  absurd  view  was  stubbornly  held  to  the  end.  At 
a  subsequent  discussion  of  the  matter  Wells  declared 
that  through  the  resignation  of  their  representative 
the  Democrats  had  lost  their  right  to  representation 
on  the  board.  He  also  alleged  that  the  members  of 
the  board  were  unable  to  agree  upon  any  one  to  fill 
the  vacancy.  2 

Seven  sessions  were  devoted  to  canvassing  and  com 
piling  the  vote  of  those  parishes  against  which  there 
were  no  protests. 3  Had  the  board  complied  with  the 
strict  letter  of  the  law,  there  would  not  have  been  much 
other  work  to  do,  for,  save  in  a  very  few  cases,  the 
protests  had  not  been  regularly  made.  The  law  regu 
lating  the  making  of  protests  provided  that  whenever, 
during  the  time  of  registration  or  revision  of  registra 
tion  or  on  the  day  of  election,  there  should  be  any  riot, 
acts  of  violence,  intimidation,  bribery,  or  corrupt  in 
fluence  which  tended  to  prevent  a  fair  and  free  elec 
tion,  the  supervisor  of  registration,  if  such  acts  oc 
curred  during  the  period  of  registration  or  revision  of 
registration,  or  the  commissioners  of  election,  if  such 
acts  occurred  on  election  day,  should  make  affidavit  of 
the  fact  and  of  the  effect  produced  thereby,  and  these 

1  S.   Ex.   Doc.   No.  2,   44th  Cong.   2d   Sess.,   pp.    40-43. 

2  Ibid,  pp.    75-76. 

3  Ibid,  pp.  45-105. 


IO2  The  Hayes-Tilden 

affidavits  must  be  corroborated  under  oath  by  three 
qualified  voters  of  the  parish.  The  affidavits  were  to 
be  made  in  duplicate,  and  if  made  by  the  commissioners 
of  election  were  to  be  forwarded  to  the  supervisor  of 
registration  for  the  parish. 1  One  copy  of  each  pro 
test  the  supervisor  must  annex  to  his  "returns  of  elec 
tion  by  paste,  wax,  or  some  adhesive  substance"  so 
that  the  same  could  be  kept  together ;  the  other  copy  he 
must  deliver  to  the  clerk  of  the  parish  court. 2  As  an 
other  section  of  the  law  provided  that  commissioners 
of  election  must  make  their  returns  within  twenty- 
four  hours  of  the  close  of  the  polls  and  that  the  super 
visors  of  registration  must  within  twenty-four  hours 
after  the  receipt  of  all  returns  consolidate  such  returns 
and  forward  them  by  mail  to  the  returning  board,  it  is 
clear  that  definite  time  limits  were  set  to  the  making  of 
protests  by  these  various  officers.  3  If  the  law  in  this 
respect  was  mandatory  and  not  merely  directory,  then 
almost  all  the  protests  upon  which  the  board  based 
their  jurisdiction  to  go  behind  the  returns  were  il 
legal  ;  4  for,  according  to  one  witness,  there  was  but  one 
protest  which  had  been  made  and  forwarded  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  law.  5 

The  reasons  why  no  more  protests  were  made  in 
time  were  various.     Some  officials  appear  to  have  re- 


1  But   in   New  Orleans  to   the   secretary  of  state. 

2  Section   26   of  Act   98,    1872,   given   Ibid,  p.    164. 

3  Ibid,  p.    166. 

4  It  was  provided,  however,  that  candidates  should  be  allowed 
a  hearing  before  the  board  upon  making  application   within  the 
time  allowed  for  the  forwarding  of  the  returns. — Ibid,  p.  161. 

5  Statement  of  Jewett  in  brief  given  to  Benj.  F.  Butler,  cited 
by  Gibson,  p.  364. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  103 

f rained  through  fear,  some  through  inattention  or  stu 
pidity,  some  because  nothing  had  occurred  in  their 
parishes  on  which  a  protest  could  be  based,  some  be 
cause  they  meant  to  force  the  Republican  managers  to 
pay  them  for  protesting,  and  some  because  they  be 
lieved  there  would  be  a  Republican  majority  which 
would  obviate  the  necessity  of  throwing  out  any  votes. l 
This  belief  that  there  would  be  a  majority  on  the 
face  of  the  returns  had  for  a  time  been  held  by  the 
leaders  at  New  Orleans.  When  the  reverse  had  been 
found  to  be  the  case,  the  lack  of  protests  had  been  ser 
iously  felt.  But  this  lack,  while  very  inconvenient, 
had  not  been  allowed  to  prevent  the  consummation  de 
sired  by  the  Republican  managers.  Luckily  most  of 
the  supervisors  had  brought  their  returns  to  New  Or 
leans  in  person,  instead  of  forwarding  them  by  mail 
as  the  law  required,  and,  arrived  there,  had  in  the  ma 
jority  of  instances  deposited  the  returns  at  the  cus 
tom-house  instead  of  delivering  them  at  once  to  the 
board ;  even  of  those  returns  sent  through  the  mails 
some  at  least  had  been  held  in  the  post-office.  An 
opportunity  was  thus  afforded  of  which  the  Republican 
managers  had  taken  full  advantage. 

"It  is  in  testimony  and  uncontradicted,  so  far  as  I 
know,"  says  one  of  the  later  congressional  investi 
gators,  "that  on  or  about  the  23d  of  November  these 
sealed  up  returns  of  supervisors  were,  in  the  presence 
of  the  secretary  of  the  Republican  campaign  commit 
tee,  opened  and  new  and  further  protests  inserted, 

1  Gibson,   pp.   365,   368-371. 


104  The  Hayes-Tilden 

upon  the  strength  of  which  parishes  or  polls  might 
be  thrown  out  by  the  returning  board.  In  one  or 
more  of  these  protests  interpolations  were  made,  over 
the  jurat,  seven  or  eight  days  after  the  same  werQ 
sworn  to,  of  new  matter,  by  which  votes  might  be 
thrown  out  by  the  returning  board.  New  protests 
were  inserted  into  other  of  the  packages  of  vague  and 
indecisive  character,  and  then  a  most  active,  vigorous, 
and  successful  search  for  witnesses  was  made  to  sus 
tain  these  new  protests  by  evidence."  -1 

Equally  active  efforts  were  made  on  the  Democratic 
side  to  meet  these  protests.  The  result  was  that  soon 
two  affidavit  "mills"  were  running  overtime  and  were 
turning  out  the  desired  product  with  machine-like  rap 
idity.  2  Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Republicans  con 
trolled  more  of  the  officers  before  whom  such  affi 
davits  could  be  made,  they  seem  to  have  been  able 
to  produce  a  slightly  larger  quantity  'than  their  oppon 
ents.  Which  party  surpassed  the  other  in  making  the 
larger  number  of  affidavits  out  of  the  smaller  quantity 
of  truth,  none  but  a  Solomon  could  determine. 

In  pursuance  of  the  jurisdiction  acquired  through 
the  irregular  protests  the  board  not  only  received  these 
affidavits  but  also  heard  oral  evidence.  The  first 
oral  evidence  taken  bore  upon  conditions  in  Ouachita, 
a  parish  in  the  northern  part  of  the  state,  not  far  from 
the  Arkansas  line. 

The  first  of  the  witnesses  introduced  by  the  Republi- 


1  H.  R.   R.  No.   140,   45th  Cong.   3d   Sess.,  p.   99. 

2  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.  414,  1072, 
1076;  III,  pp.  102,  127,  535-540,  560-565,  580-587.     The  Republi 
can  "mill"  was  in  the  custom-house. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  105 

cans  was  Henry  Burrell,  a  colored  man.  He  pictured 
a  very  disorderly  and  lawless  state  of  affairs  as  hav 
ing  existed  in  his  parish  prior  to  the  election.  Ac 
cording  to  his  account  the  negro  Republicans  had  been 
terrorized  by  five  Democratic  rifle-clubs  which  had 
ridden  about  the  country  at  night,  forcing  negroes  to 
join  Democratic  clubs,  and  whipping,  maiming,  and 
even  murdering  the  leaders  or  those  who  were  partic 
ularly  stubborn.  Burrell  had  himself  been  shot  by  a 
white  man,  though  the  motive  for  the  shooting  is  not 
entirely  clear.  Just  before  the  election  he  had  also 
been  captured  by  bulldozers,  arid  had  been  forced  by 
threats  of  death  to  destroy  about  1400  Republican  bal 
lots  which  were  in  his  possession. 1 

Eaton  Logwood,  another  colored  man,  corroborated 
Burrell's  testimony  regarding  the  condition  of  affairs 
in  Ouachita.  He  had  suffered  bodily  harm  on  ac 
count,  he  alleged,  of  his  political  principles.  Two 
white  men,  blackened  to  look  like  negroes,  had  rid 
den  up  to  his  cabin,  had  shot  him,  and  had  killed  his 
brother-in-law,  Primus  Johnson,  who  at  the  time  was 
holding  a  child  in  his  arms.  Logwood's  own  wounds 
had  been  frightful  ones,  and  were  not  yet  healed. 2 

But  this  evidence  was  as  nothing  to  that  given  by  the 
next  witness,  Eliza  Pinkston.  Attended  by  a  woman 
with  restoratives,  Mrs.  Pinkston  was  borne  into  the 
room  on  a  chair  by  two  stalwart  negroes.  In  this 
proceeding  and  in  what  followed  there  was  an  evident 


1  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,   44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.   105-110. 

2  Ibid,    pp.    110-113. 


106  The  Hayes-Tilden 

striving  after  effect  —  a  striving  which  was  altogether 
unnecessary,  for  the  story  needed  no  embellishment. 
What  she  had  to  tell  caused  a  great  sensation  among 
the  Northern  visitors, 1  and  was  telegraphed  to  the 
remotest  parts  of  the  Union. 

She  testified  that  up  to  the  Saturday  night  before  the 
election  she  had  lived  with  Henry  Pinkston  in  a  cabin 
on  what  was  known  as  "The  Island"  of  Ouachita 
parish.  On  that  night  a  party  of  white  men,  some 
of  whom  she  claimed  to  have  recognized,  and  two 
negroes  had  ridden  up  to  the  cabin,  and  had  called  for 
Pinkston.  Failing  to  entice  him  out,  they  had  broken 
in  (the  door,  had  seized  him,  and  had  sworn  that  if 
he  voted  the  Republican  ticket  he  would  have  "to  vote 
it  in  hell."  When  the  woman  had  attempted  to  inter 
fere,  she  had  been  knocked  down.  The  ruffians  had 
then  gagged  the  man;  had  gashed  him  with  knives, 
making  a  sound  "just  like  cutting  in  new  leather ;" 
had  then  dragged  him  outside;  and  had  there  shot 
him  seven  times.  Some  of  them  had  then  re-entered 
the  cabin ;  had  killed  a  baby  which  the  woman  held  in 
her  arms ;  had  assaulted  the  woman  several  times ; 
and  had  then  shot  her,  cut  her,  gashed  her  with  an 
axe,  and  left  her  for  dead.  In  proof  of  her  story  she 
exhibited  her  wounds,  which  were  still  unhealed. 
They  were  a  shocking  sight,  for  she  had  unquestionably 

1  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  115-116.  Ex- 
Governor  Palmer,  a  Democrat  from  Illinois,  was  especially 
horrified  by  the  recital.  "If  this  woman's  story  is  true,"  said 
he,  "the  people  who  could  practice  any  such  violence  would 
have  no  right  to  complain  of  any  sort  of  government  that  would 
be  put  over  them." — S.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  14,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess., 
p.  102. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  107 

been  brutally  dealt  with;  on  her  thigh  there  was  a 
frightful  gash,  there  were  wounds  in  her  head  and 
neck,  and  there  was  a  deep  wound  in  one  of  her 
breasts. 

Every  possible  effort  was  made  by  the  Democrats, 
both  before  the  returning  board  and  before  later  con 
gressional  investigating  committees,  to  break  down  the 
story  of  this  outrage.  It  was  claimed  that  the  murder 
had  no  political  significance,  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
Pinkston  was  a  Democrat.1  Charles  Tidwell,  the 
owner  of  the  plantation  on  which  the  murder  occurred, 
reluctantly  admitted  before  a  Senate  committee,  how 
ever,  that  while  Pinkston  had  two  years  before  voted 
with  the  Democrats,  he  was  at  the  time  of  his  death 
a  Radical ; 2  there  was  also  evidence  to  the  effect  that 
by  remaining  away  from  a  Democratic  rally  Pinkston 
had  endangered  his  life.  3  Another  theory  propounded 
by  the  Democrats  was  that  Pinkston  was  killed  by  a 
negro  named  Brooks,  with  whom  he  had  had  a  fight 
some  months  before.  4  But  there  was  no  real  evidence 
to  support  the  theory ;  while  there  was  evidence,  both 
direct  and  circumstantial,  that  the  killing  was  the  work 
of  several  men.  5  Much  evidence  was  brought  in  by 
the  Democrats  to  show  that  because  Eliza  was  of 
bad  character  no  weight  should  be  attached  to  her 


1  This  claim  was  put  forward  by  the  Democratic  members  of 
the  House  Committee. — H.  R.  R.  No.  156,  Part  I,  44th  Cong.  2d 
Sess.,  p.   46.     It  appears  that  he  had  so  voted  in   1874. 

2  S.  R.  No.  701,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.   735.     See  also  pp.   90 
and   596. 

3  Ibid,  pp   Ixxxi,  502,  515. 

4  H.  R.  R.  No.   156,  Part  1,   44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  p.   46. 

5  S.   R.  No.   701,   44th  Cong.   2d   Sess.,   pp.   90,   91,   97,   623. 


io8  The  Hayes-Tilden 

story  of  the  outrage. l  As  regards  her  character  there 
was  no  room  for  doubt.  Her  own  testimony  2  showed 
her  to  be  vulgar  and  indecent  to  a  degree  scarcely  con 
ceivable  ;  and  she  was  much  given  to  embellishing  her 
account  with  details  that  were  evidently  fictitious. 
Yet  the  essential  portions  of  her  story  were  not  success 
fully  impeached.  The  anxiety  of  some  partisan 
writers,  such  as  Gibson  and  Bigelow,  to  prove  the  out 
rage  all  a  pretense  has  betrayed  them  into  some  rather 
grim  absurdities.  Gibson  triumphantly  points  to  the 
fact  that  the  child's  throat  was  not  cut.  as  she  alleged, 
and  that  Pinkston's  body  was  not  mutilated  in  the  man 
ner  she  described.  3  He  seems  to  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  the  child  was  nevertheless  killed,  that  its  body 
was  thrown  into  a  pond,  where  it  was  not  found  for 
a  week;  of  the  fact  that  Pinkston  was  shot  seven 
times  and  that  his  dead  body  was  so  distorted  that 
it  was  not  put  into  a  coffin  but  was  buried  in  a  quilt. 
So  fiendish  an  outrage  may  appear  incredible  to  some 
people,  yet  it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  outrages  fully 
as  brutal  were  committed  by  the  Ku  Klux  —  are 
still  committed  in  some  sections.  The  explanation  lies 
in  the  barbarous  character  of  a  portion  of  the  white 
population  and  in  the  low  value  attached  to  a  "nig 
ger's"  life. x 


1  S.  R.  No.   701,   44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  pp.   517-536.     Pinkston 
himself  was   represented   as   a   "good  negro." 

2  Ibid,  pp.   909  et  seq. 

3  A  Political  Crime,  p.   163. 

4  For  some  of  the  other  evidence  see  index  to  S.  R.  No.  701, 
44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,   p.   clxxiv ;   H.   R.   R.  No.    156,   Part   1,   44th 
Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  41-46,  discusses  the  case  from  the  Democratic 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  109 

But  whatever  may  have  been  the  facts  and  motives 
attending  the  Pinkston  murders,  the  evidence  before 
the  returning  board  —  even  the  evidence  introduced 
by  the  Democrats  —  revealed  a  most  disorderly  con 
dition  of  affairs  in  the  parish  of  Ouachita.  Beginning 
in  August  with  the  murder  of  J.  H.  Dinkgrave,  a 
prominent  white  Republican,  by  an  unknown  assassin, 
there  had  been  a  series  of  murders  and  assaults  upon 
negro  Republicans  by  persons  who  escaped  the  con 
sequences  of  their  crimes.  White  rifle-clubs  were  ac 
tive  ;  and,  largely  as  a  result  of  the  fear  which  their 
activity  inspired,  about  700  negroes  joined  Democratic 
clubs.  It  appears,  however,  that  there  was  fear  among 
some  of  the  Democratic  leaders  that  all  these  recruits 
might  not  "stick,"  l  so,  as  an  object  lesson,  a  demon 
stration  was  made  on  the  Saturday  night  just  prior  to 
the  election.  On  that  night  parties  of  men  severely 
whipped  Abram  Williams  and  Willis  Frazier,  two  col 
ored  Republicans  ;  attempted  to  catch  the  son  of  Abram 
Williams,  but  not  finding  him  at  home,  whipped  his 
wife  and  outraged  her;  killed  Merrimon  Rhodes  and 
threw  his  body  into  a  bayou ;  whipped  Randall  Driver ; 
and  murdered  Henry  Pinkston  and  child  in  the  man 
ner  already  described. 

Seeing  the  situation  of  affairs  in  the  parish,  the 
Republican  managers  had  already  decided  not  to  at- 

standpoint  and  gives  references  to  important  testimony.  See  also 
newspapers  of  Nov.  29th,  30th  and  Dec.  1st.  No  importance 
should  be  attached  to  the  story  circulated  in  1878  that  Eliza  had 
made  a  counter-confession. — See  The  Nation,  XXVII,  pp.  1  and 
62. 

1  Letter  of  the  chairman  of  the  Democratic  executive  commit 
tee.— S.  R.  No.  701,  44th  Cong:.  2d  Sess.,  p.  xix. 


no  The  Hayes-Tilden 

tempt  to  have  their  followers  vote  at  the  outlying 
polls,  but  to  have  them  come  into  Monroe,  the  chief 
town,  where  there  was  a  small  detachment  of  United 
States  troops.  There  was  nothing  unlawful  in  this 
procedure,  for  the  law  allowed  a  man  properly  reg 
istered  to  cast  his  ballot  at  any  poll  in  the  parish ;  but 
to-  prevent  the  movement,  the  rifle-clubs  picketed  the 
approaches  to  the  town ;  while  the  Democratic  mayor 
issued  a  proclamation  directing  the  negroes  to  return 
to  their  homes. 1 

The  evidence  before  the  returning  board  showed 
that  in  a  number  of  other  parishes  there  had  been  a 
condition  of  affairs  somewhat  similar  to  that  just  de 
scribed  in  Ouachita.  For  example,  in  East  Feliciana, 
a  parish  in  which  the  Republican  vote  for  state  officers 
in  1874  had  been  1,688,  the  negro  Republicans  had 
been  so  demoralized  as  a  result  of  a  reign  of  violence 
which  had  begun  more  than  a  year  before  that  the. 
Republican  managers  appear  to  have  given  up  all  hope 
of  carrying  the  parish  and  to  have  issued  instructions 
to  their  followers  not  to  attempt  to  vote.  In  conse 
quence,  only  a  single  Republican  ballot,  and  that  a 
defective  one,  was  cast ;  and  the  Republican  majority 


1  For  the  Republican  affidavits  regarding  the  situation  in 
Ouachita  see  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  330-420. 
They  are  ex  parte  and  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  most  of 
them.  The  most  valuable  are  those  of  Captain  Hale  and  Lieu 
tenant  McCawley  of  the  United  States  Army,  pp.  330  and  336 
respectively.  For  the  Democratic  affidavits  see  S.  Mis.  Doc.  No. 
14,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  775-915.  The  mayor's  proclamation 
mentioned  above  is  given  on  page  823.  See  also  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc. 
No.  34,  Part  6,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  1-195,  and  index  of  S. 
R.  No.  701,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  civ  et  seq. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  in 

of  841   in   1874  was  transformed  into  a  Democratic 
majority  of  1,741. 1 

After  twelve  public  sessions  the  board  on  Monday, 
December  4th,  met  in  private  and  began  the  really 
important  portion  of  their  work.  What  would  be  the 
outcome  of  their  labors  was  a  matter  about  which  the 
general  public  was  uncertain,  for  there  were  rumors 
and  counter  rumors  of  bribery.  How  much  truth 
there  was  in  these  various  rumors  will  probably  never 
be  exactly  ascertained.  There  is  evidence  to  show  that 
Wells  at  least  "was  in  the  market."  On  November 
21  st  he  wrote  to  Senator  West,  who  was  then  in  Wash 
ington  :  ''Millions  have  been  sent  here  and  will  be 
used  in  the  interest  of  Tilden,  and  unless  some  counter 
move  [is  made],  it  will  be  impossible  for  me  or  any 
individual  to  wrest  its  productive  results."  2  This  let 
ter  he  committed  to  the  care  of  Joseph  H.  Maddox,  a 
special  agent  of  the  treasury,  who  journeyed  to  Wash 
ington,  and  after  failing  to  secure  any  encouragement 
from  Republican  leaders,  entered  into  an  alliance  with 
Col.  John  T.  Pickett,  a  soldier  of  fortune  who  had 
some  years  before  achieved  notoriety  and  cash  by  sell 
ing  the  Confederate  archives  to  the  national  govern 
ment.  In  accordance  with  an  agreement  between  the 
two,  Col.  Pickett  proceeded  to  New  York  City,  and 
there  informed  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  chairman  of  the 

1  For  some  of  the  evidence  regarding  East  Feliciana  see  S.  R. 
Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  223-258;  for  some  of  the 
evidence  taken  by  the  Senate  investigating  committee  see  S.  R. 
No.  701,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  index  under  East  Feliciana,  pp. 
clx-cxciii.  For  the  "confession"  of  Anderson,  the  Republican 
supervisor,  see  chapter  xiii. 

2  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  42,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  180. 


112  The  Playes-Tilden 

Democratic  national  committee,  that  the  Louisiana 
board  would  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  $1,000,000 
render  a  decision  favorable  to  Tilden,  but  the  proposi 
tion  was  not  accepted. 1  It  appears  also  that  Wells 
personally  offered  for  $200,000  to  secure  the  counting 
in  of  the  Democratic  state  ticket.  Some  steps  were 
taken  to  raise  the  money,  but  the  deal  ultimately 
failed.  2  What  negotiations  if  any  he  carried  on  with 
Republicans,  is  a  matter  of  greater  uncertainty.  It  has 
been  said  but  not  proved  that  he  refused  to  promise  a 
Republican  decision  until  the  state  authorities  had 
cashed  at  par  some  state  warrants  worth  only  about 
thirty  cents  on  the  dollar.  3  It  has  also  been  alleged  that 
he  arrived  at  an  understanding  with  certain  of  the 
Republican  "visiting  statesmen/'  4  but  upon  this  there 
exists  no  evidence  whatever.  It  is  only  known  that 
after  the  inauguration  of  Hayes  he  became  surveyor 
of  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  that  Anderson  became  the 
deputy  collector,  and  that  Kenner  became  the  deputy 
naval  officer. 

But  whether  or  not  the  members  of  the  board  were 
spurred  on  by  the  hope  of  a  reward,  they  certainly 
worked  zealously  to  evolve  a  Republican  majority. 
The  task  proved  a  more  complex  one  than  had  orig 
inally  been  anticipated.  The  first  hypothesis,  made 
before  the  returns  had  been  opened,  appears  to  have 
been  that  the  board  would  be  able  to  get  rid  of  enough 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  42,   44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  131,  135, 
143,    156,    178. 

2  Testimony  of  Duncan  F.   Kenner,  Ibid,  pp.   376,   383. 

3  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.  1426-1431. 

4  Gibson,  p.  222. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  1 13 

votes  in  the  five  parishes  of  East  Baton  Rouge,  Oua- 
chita,  Morehouse,  and  the  two  Felicianas ; 1  but  it 
had  soon  been  discovered  that  a  number  of  other  par 
ishes  would  have  to  be  purged  of  Democratic  polls.  2 
The  necessity  arose  in  part  out  of  the  fact  that  in  cer 
tain  parishes  the  names  of  some  Republican  electors 
had  been  omitted  from  the  ballots,  with  the  result  that 
a  part  of  them  had  run  more  than  2,000  votes  behind 
the  rest  of  the  ticket. 3  The  board  were  therefore 
obliged  to  do  some  heroic  work  in  accomplishing  their 
purpose.  They  rejected  the  entire  vote  of  East  Felici- 
ana  on  the  ground  of  intimidation,  and  that  of  Grant 
parish  on  the  plea  that  there  had  been  no  legal  election 
because  the  supervisor  had  fled  from  the  parish  more 
than  a  month  before  the  election.  In  addition,  they 
threw  out  69  polls  from  22  other  parishes,  and  also 
refused  to  receive  the  vote  of  certain  polls  which 
the  supervisors  of  Tangipahoa,  East  Baton  Rouge, 
Lafayette,  La  Fourche,  and  the  assistant  supervisors  of 
wards  2,  7,  and  n  of  New  Orleans,  had,  without  law 
ful  authority,  excluded  from  their  returns.  In  this 
way  the  board  got  rid  of  13,213  Democratic  votes,  but 
in  the  process  were  obliged  to  throw  out  the  votes  of 
2,415  Republicans.  The  result  was  a  substantial  ma 
jority  of  3,437  for  the  Republican  elector  lowest  on 


1  Sherman  to  Hayes,  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  2d 
Sess.,   I,      p.    771. 

2  H.   R.   R.   No.   140,   45th  Cong.    3d  Sess.,  p.   97. 

3  Sen.  Mis.  Doc.  No.   14,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.   21,   45,   76, 
165      The   beard  also  threw  out  many  votes   in   oraer  to   secure 
a   Republican    legislature,    the   election    of   as   many    Republican 
congressmen  as  possible,  etc. 


114  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  list,  a  majority   for   Packard  of   3,426,  and  the 
choice  of  a  Republican  legislature. 1 

The  announcement  of  this  happy  result  was  not  of 
ficially  made  knewn  to  the  general  public  until  Wed 
nesday  morning,  December  6th,  the  legal  date  for  the 
meeting  of  the  electoral  college.     But  the  Republican 
€  electors*  were  present  in  New  Orleans  ready  to  do  their 

work.  At  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  the  college 
convened,  .with  all  but  two  of  the  electors  present. 2 
These  two,O.  H.  Brewster  and  A.  B.  Levissee,  had  been 
objected  to  as  ineligible  because  they  had  held  offices 
of  trust  ami  profit  under  the  United  States  at  the  time 
they  were  elected.  Having  now  resigned  their  offices, 
they  remained  away  in  order  that  the  other  electors* 
*night  take  advantage  of  the  state  law  providing  for 
the  filling  of  vacancies  caused  by  the  death,  sickness, 
or  absence  of  electors.  The  other  members,  in  ac 
cordance  with  a  prearranged  plan,  chose  Brewster  and 
Levissee  to  fill  their  own  vacancies.  The  two  then 
appeared,  3  and  th£  college  thereupon  proceeded  to  cast 
the  eight  votes  of  the  state  of  Louisiana  foifcHayes  and 
Wheeler.4  , 

Now,  how'eVer,  began  a  peculiar  complication.     In 
accordance  with  the  Constitution  triplicate  certificates 

1  H.   R.    Mis.    Doc.   No.    34.    Part   2,    44th   Cong.    2d   Sess.,   pp. 
790-794;  also  S.  R.  No.  701,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  3110-3118. 

2  For  proceedings  of  the  college  see  H.  R.   Mis.  Doc.   No.   31, 
45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.   80,  95,   128. 

3  Levissee  announced  to  the  other  electors  that  he  had  been 
offered  $100,000  Jto  cast  his  vote  for  Tilden. — Ibid,  pp.  80  et  seq. 

4  It  has  been*eriarged  that  the  electors  failed  to  vote  for  Pres 
ident  and  Vice-President  by  distinct  ballots  as  the  Constitution 
requires. — H.  R.  R.  No.  140,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  p.  50.  The  certi 
ficates  stated,  however,   that  separate  ballots  were  taken. — Pro 
ceedings  of  the  Electoral  Commission,  p.   206. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  1 15 

of  the  vote  were  made  out,  and  one  of  these  was  mailed 
to  the  president  of  the  Senate,  one  was  filed  with  the 
judge  of  the  United  States  district  court,  and  one 
was  delivered  to  T.  C.  Anderson,  who  was  chosen  to 
carry  it  to  Washington.  When  Anderson  reached 
Washington  and  presented  the  package  to  Mr.  Ferry, 
the  president  of  the  Senate,  that  officer  called  his  at 
tention  to  the  fact  that  the  envelope  was  not  properly 
endorsed.  Following  the  same  course  which  he  pur 
sued  with  regard  to  irregular  returns  from  North  Car 
olina,  Tennessee,  and  other  states, l  Mr.  Ferry  allowed 
Anderson  to  retain  the  certificate  in  order  to  have  the 
defect  rectified.  Before  leaving  Washington  Ander 
son  began,  somewhat  unnecessarily,  2  to  fear  that  the 
certificates  themselves  were  not  in  regular  form  be 
cause  the  lists  of  votes  for  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent  were  not  on  separate  sheets  of  paper.  When  he 
reached  New  Orleans,  therefore,  he  communicated  his 
fears  to  some  of  the  Republican  leaders,  and  it  was 
decided  that  new  certificates  must  be  made.  But  the 
time  was  short,  and  two  of  the  electors  were  so  far 
away  that  they  could  not  possibly  get  to  New  Orleans 
before  the  work  must  be  done.  The  Republican 
leaders  were  not  men  to  be  discouraged  by  such  an 


1  The  returns  from  almost  half  the  states  were  in  some  re 
spect   irregular. — Testimony   of  Ferry,    H.    R.    Mis.    Doc.    No.    31, 
45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  p.   139.     Jhe  statement  is  taken  from  his 
memorandum. 

2  In  every  essential  the  original  certificates  were  in  this  re 
spect  as  regular  as  the  Democratic  certificates   from   Louisiana, 
Florida,  Oregon,  and  South  Carolina.     Compare  certificates  given 
on   pp.   13,    206,   208,    662    of  Proceedings   of   the   Electoral   Com 
mission. 


116  The  Hayes-Tilden 

obstacle  as  this.  The  signatures  of  the  six  who  could 
be  reached  were  secured,  and  then  those  of  the  other 
two  were  forged.  Just  who  committed  the  forgery 
does  not  appear ;  but  it  is  certain  that  Governor  Kel 
logg,  H.  Conquest  Clarke,  the  governor's  private  sec 
retary,  and  perhaps  others,  were  privy  to  the  forgery. 1 

On  the  same  day  on  which  the  Republican  electors 
originally  met,  the  Democratic  claimants,  basing  their 
authority  on  an  irregular  canvass  of  certified  copies  of 
the  returns,  likewise  assembled  and  cast  their  ballots 
for  Tilden  and  Hendricks.  Their  certificates  were 
signed  by  John  McEnery,  who  claimed  to  be  de  jure 
governor  of  Louisiana.  2 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  result  announced  by  the 
returning  board  had  been  attained  by  a  series  of 
grossly  partisan  and  illegal  acts.  The  board  had  failed 
to  obey  the  statute  requiring  them  to  fill  the  vacancy 
in  their  membership.  They  had  entertained  protests 
which  had  been  irregularly  made.  They  had  allowed 
to  stand  the  action  of  supervisors  and  assistant-super 
visors  who  had  refused  to  compile  certain  polls.  One 
or  more  of  them  had,  it  appears,  even  altered  and  falsi 
fied  the  returns  from  Vernon  and  perhaps  from  other 
parishes.  For  this  offense  they  were  all  in  the  follow 
ing  year  indicted;  and  one  of  them,  Anderson,  was 
tried,  convicted,  and  sentenced  to  the  penitentiary  for 
two  years,  but  was  ultimately  released  by  the  supreme 


1  See  H.  R.  R.  No.   140,   45th  Cong.   3d  Sess.,  pp.   50-63  and 
89-91.     References  are  there  given  to  the  important  testimony. 

2  New  York  Times  and   World  of  Dec.  7th. 


^ 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  117 

court  of  the  state  on  the  ground  that  the  offense  was 
not  covered  by  the  statute. 1 

Nevertheless,  the  decision  of  the  board  was  final ; 
there  was  no  redress  against  its  actions  however  irreg 
ular.  In  the  case  of  Moncure  vs.  Dubuclet,  decided 
in  May,  1876,  the  state  supreme  court  had  in  effect 
decided  that  the  actions  of  the  returning  board  were 
beyond  the  reach  of  judicial  inquiry  because  the  leg 
islature  had  omitted  to  enact  a  lav/  under  which  pro 
ceedings  in  such  cases  could  be  conducted.  2 

An  interesting  question  which  remains  to  be  consid 
ered  is :  Did  the  returning  board  in  the  exercise  of 
their  extraordinary  powers  override  the  real  will  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  in  the  state  of  Louisiana? 
Or,  to  speak  brutally,  did  they  by  an  illegal  process 
which  acquired  the  force  of  law,  merely  take  back 
stolen  property?  To  put  it  in  yet  other  words,  was 
the  situation  one  of  those  rare  situations  in  which 
two  wrongs  go  to  make  a  right? 

This  much  may  be  said  at  the  outset,  namely,  that, 
despite  affidavits  and  frantic  assertions  to  the  con 
trary,  there  was  not  a  full,  fair,  and  free  election. 
Some  partisans  perhaps  persuaded  themselves  that 
there  were  no  rifle-clubs,  no  threats,  no  whippings,  no 
murders ;  but  there  were  partisans  on  both  sides  quite 
equal  to  the  task  of  persuading  themselves,  or  at  least 
of  attempting  to  persuade  others,  that  all  the  blacks 


1  See  Report  of  Trial  of  Thomas  C.  Anderson.     A  copy  of  this 
pamphlet    is    in    the    Lenox    Library,    New   York   City.      See    also 
Gibson,  pp.   232-237. 

2  See  also  the  case  of  Bonner  vs.  Lynch,  28  La.  Ann.,  p.  208. 


n8  The  Hayes-Tilden 

were  whites,  had  the  result  of  the  election  hinged  upon 
such  a  demonstration.  Intimidation  was,  in  truth,  one 
of  the  central  facts  of  the  campaign.  It  was  occa 
sionally  resorted  to  by  Republicans,  but  it  would 
roughly  be  correct  to  say  that  it  was  a  weapon  belong 
ing  to  the  Democrats.  It  was  the  chief  means  by 
which  Republican  negroes  were  induced  to  change 
their  politics.  Very  few  were  convinced  by  talk  about 
misgovernment  or  by  appeals  of  that  sort.  All  asser 
tions  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the  negro,  when 
left  to  his  own  choice,  was  as  naturally  a  Republican 
as  his  former  master  was  naturally  a  Democrat. 

That  the  methods  employed  by  the  whites  were  effec 
tive  is  shown  with  startling  distinctness  by  the  follow 
ing  table : 

Election  of  1 8  7  4  Regis,  of  1 8  7  6  Elect,  of  1 8  7  6 

Dem.  Rep.  White  Colored  Dem.  Rep. 

East  Baton  Rouge 1,556  2,546  1,867       3,400  1,102  1,476 

East   Feliciana 847  1,688  1,004       2,127  1,736       

West  Feliciana 501  1,358  399        2,213  1,248  778 

Morehouse    654  1,017  938        1,830  1,371  782 

Ouachita     766  1,694  992        2,392  1,865  793 

Total 4,324      8,303      5,200      11,962      7,322      3,829 

These  figures  x  taken  alone  are  sufficient  proof  that  ex 
traordinary  things  must  have  occurred  in  these  par 
ishes.  When  we  know,  in  addition,  that  Republican 
officials  in  certain  of  these  parishes  had,  during  the 
preceding  year,  been  driven  out  or  killed,  that  the  white 
Democrats  were  organized  into  secret  military  organ 
izations  which  rode  up  and  down  the  country  at  night 
threatening,  beating,  and  even  murdering  negroes,  that 

1  For  figures  see  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  34,  Part  2,  44th  Cong. 
2d  Sess.,  pp.  494  and  788. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  119 

Democratic  employers,  who  owned  practically  all  prop 
erty,  threatened  to  discharge  every  one  who  affiliated 
with  the  Republicans,  that  the  Republican  negroes  were 
weak-spirited  and  poor,  so  poor  that  they  were  in 
absolute  dependence  from  day  to  day  upon  their  Dem 
ocratic  employers  for  their  daily  rations  of  bread  and 
meat,  we  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that,  whatever 
may  be  said  in  justification,  electioneering  methods 
were  used  in  the  "selected"  or  "bulldozed"  parishes 
which  are  not  usually  regarded  as  legitimate.  Efforts 
to  explain  the  falling  off  of  the  Republican  vote  on 
other  grounds  are  futile,  for  there  is  no  real  proof  that 
the  situation  in  these  parishes  differed  from  that  in 
others  in  any  material  respect  save  that  different  meth 
ods  were  employed  by  the  whites  and  the  negroes  were 
more  thoroughly  terrorized. 

That  in  a  full,  fair,  and  free  election  the  Republicans 
would  have  received  a  majority  cannot,  of  course,  be 
absolutely  proven;  and  yet  by  processes  of  compar 
ison  it  is  possible  to  arrive  at  a  pretty  definite  conclu 
sion  regarding  the  matter.  If,  for  example,  it  be 
assumed  that  the  number  of  voluntary  negro  Demo 
crats  was  about  equal  to  the  number  of  white  Repub 
licans  —  and  the  assumption  is  a  reasonable  one  — 
then  the  Republicans  were  in  a  clear  majority  in  the 
state  of  several  thousands.  But  the  following  com 
parison  is  much  more  convincing:  In  41  parishes  in 
which  the  amount  of  intimidation  was  relatively  small, 


I2O  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  colored  registration  amounted  to  87,999, 1  and  the 
white  registration  to  72,034,  leaving  a  colored  majority 
of  15,965.  2  These  parishes  yielded  in  the  election  a 
Republican  majority  of  6,353.  I"  tne  remaining  17 
parishes,  in  which  terrorism  was  alleged,  the  colored 
registration  was  27,269 ; 3  the  white  registration,  20,- 
320,  giving  a  colored  majority  of  6,949.  Yet  these 
parishes  returned  a  Democratic  majority  of  10,153. 
Had  the  proportion  of  negroes  who  voted  Republican 
in  these  parishes  been  the  same  as  in  the  other  41, 
there  would  have  been  a  Republican  majority  in  the 
17  parishes  of  between  2,000  and  3,000.  Thus  the 
majority  in  the  state  as  a  whole  would  have  been 
from  8,000  to  10,000.  Or,  to  make  a  yet  more  con 
vincing  comparison :  Had  even  the  five  bulldozed 
parishes  of  East  Baton  Rouge,  East  Feliciana,  West 
Feliciana,  Morehouse,  and  Ouachita,  voted  approx 
imately  as  they  did  in  1874,  the  result  would  have  been 
changed  sufficiently  to  give  the  lowest  Republican 
elector  a  small  majority  of  about  800  of  the  vote  as 


1  According  to  the  census  of  1880  the  negro  population  of  the 
state  exceeded  the  white  population  by  26,364.     The  white  males 
of  voting  age  exceeded  the  colored  males  of  voting  age  by  833, 
but  many  thousands  of  the  whites  were  foreigners  who  were  not 
voters.     The  state  census  of  1875  showed  104,192  colored  voters 
and    84,167    white   voters,    but   this   census    is   wholly   unreliable. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  national  census  of  1870,  at  least  for  the 
negro  population. — See  Frederick  Hoffman,  Race  Traits  and  Ten 
dencies  of  the  American  Negro,     p.  4.     For  some  Democratic  sta 
tistics  compiled  by  Prof.  Chaill£  of  New  Orleans,  see  H.  R.  Mis. 
Doc.  No.  34,   Part  2,   44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  pp.   470-478.      Some  of 
his   conclusions  are  well   taken,   but   others  are  fully  as   absurd 
as  the  census  of  1875. 

2  These  figures  include  the  padded  registration  in  New  Orleans. 
As  previously  pointed  out  the  Republicans  derived  little  advan 
tage  from  the  excess. 

3  Practically  all  this  registration  was  bo?ia  fide  and  ought  to 
have  yielded  a  heavy  vote. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 8j6  121 

actually  cast,  or  of  about  3,000  as  the  vote  was  sent  in 
by  the  election  officials  to  the  returning  board. x  All 
things  considered,  it  would  be  pretty  safe  to  say  that 
in  an  absolutely  fair  and  free  election  the  state  would 
have  gone  Republican  by  from  five  Jo_fif  teen  thous- 
and.  ^ 

But  whatever  might  have  been  the  result  under  other 
conditions,  there  was  in  the  actual  Louisiana  situation 
one  fact  which  was  in  the  end  to  prove  decisive.  The 
body  to  which,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  state 
and  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  belonged  the  final  de 
termination  of  the  result  of  the  election  had  declared 
in  favor  of  the  Republican  electors.  These  electors 
had  met  and  had  cast  their  ballots  for  Rutherford  B. 
Hayes  and  William  A.  Wheeler;  and  the  returns  of 
their  vote  had  been  certified  by  the  man  who,  rightly 
or  wrongly,  had  been  recognized  by  all  branches  of  the 
Federal  government  as  the  chief  executive  of  the 
commonwealth. 

1  For  the  figures  used  in  making  these  comparisons  see  H.  R 
Mis.  Doc.  No.  34,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  2  folders  between 
pp.    494-495;    S.    R.    No.    701,    44th   Cong.    2d    Sess.,    pp.    xli-xlii 
liii-lviii;  S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  178-185. 

2  But   it   should  not  for  a   moment  be  supposed   that  the   re 
turning  board  was  moved  by  high  ideals  of  its  duty  as  a  court 
of   equity.     Doubtless   they   would   have   proceeded   in    the   same 
way  had  they  known  that  the  election  had  been  absolutely  free 
and  fair. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

RIFLE-CLUBS  IN  THE  PALMETTO  STATE 

Rarely  have  a  proud  people  drunk  deeper  of  the 
cup  of  humiliation  than  did  the  white  inhabitants  of 
South  Carolina  in  the  sixteen  years  following  the  sui 
cidal  ordinance  of  December,  1860.  Forced  during 
four  years  of  mingled  triumph  and  defeat  to  endure 
the  vexation  of  a  blockading  fleet  which  win 
ter  or  summer  never  relaxed  its  watch  upon  their 
coasts,  they  at  last  recognized  the  inevitable  end  when 
an  invading  army  swept  through  the  state  consuming 
and  destroying  everything  in  its  path  and  leaving  the 
capital  in  ruins.  At  intervals  for  more  than  a  decade 
thereafter  troops  wearing  the  hated  blue  were  sta 
tioned  here  and  there  about  the  state,  and  from  their 
camps  at  sunset  had  floated  not  infrequently  through 
the  quiet  evening  air  the  strains  of  a  song  relating  to 
a  certain  Brown  late  of  Osawatomie.1  But  no  such 
gentle  reminder  was  necessary  to  make  apparent  the 
fact  that  the  old  order  had  passed  away.  Other  things 
brought  that  fact  home  in  a  far  more  tangible  form. 


1  Pike,   The  Prostrate  State,  p.   79. 


The  Disputed  Election  of  1876       123 

The  pyramid  of  society  had  been  turned  upside  down. 1 
Those  who  had  been  the  slaves  were  become  the  rulers. 
In  the  government,  in  the  places  of  the  now  impov 
erished  aristocracy,  stood  black  and  brown  freedmen, 
led  by  hated  Yankees  and  equally  hated  "scalawags ;" 
and  from  the  panels  over  the  doors  of  the  stately  cap- 
itol  at  Columbia  the  marble  visages  of  George  McDuf- 
fie  and  Robert  Young  Hayne  looked  down  upon  the 
incomings  and  outgoings  of  a  strange  legislature, 
three-fourths  of  whose  members  belonged  to  that 
despised  race  once  the  victims  of  the  institution  which 
had  formed  the  "corner-stone"  of  the  fallen  Confed 
eracy. 

There  may  have  been  somewhat  of  poetic  justice  in 
the  situation  just  described,  but  the  bouleversewient 
was  unquestionably  bad  for  the  economic  interests  of 
the  state  of  South  Carolina.  However  good  his  in 
tentions  —  and  the  intentions  of  some  were  of  the 
best  —  an  untutored  black  man,  fresh  from  slavery 
in  the  Sea  Island  cotton  fields,  could  not  possibly  be  a 
thoroughly  satisfactory  legislator  or  even  citizen.  A 
.reign  of  misgovernment  therefore  followed  enfran 
chisement  —  a  period  which,  while  not  quite  so  re 
plete  with  pitched  battles  and  revolutions,  was  in  its 
economic  aspects  fully  as  deplorable  as  that  in  Louis- 


1  "De  bottom  rail  Is  on  de  top,  an'  we's  gwine  keep  it  dere," 
said  the  negroes. — Scribner's  Magazine,  VIII,  p.  151.  They  ar- 
grued  that  their  labor  had  made  the  whites  wealthy  and  that  now 
the  wealth  should  be  taken  away  by  taxation.  Governor  Moses 
in  a  message  advocated  taxing  the  land  so  heavily  that  the  own 
ers  would  be  forced  to  sell  to  the  negroes. — Ibid,  p.  136. 


124  The  Hayes-Tilden 

iana. l  The  amount  of  money  actually  stolen  has 
probably  been  exaggerated  by  some  writers  and  by 
partisan  investigating  committees,  and  yet  the  bare 
truth  was  sufficient  to  make  a  chapter  previously  un 
paralleled  in  American  history.  During  the  six  years 
from  1868  to  1874  the  public  debt  was  increased  by 
about  $14,000,000,  while  in  the  period  from  1860  to 
1874  the  total  valuation  of  property  decreased  from 
$490,000,000  to  $141,624,952.  Of  this  decline,  amount 
ing  in  round  numbers  to  $348,000,000,  from  $170,000,- 
ooo  to  $200,000,000  was  due  to  the  freeing  of  the 
slaves, 2  and  many  more  millions  to  losses  occasioned 
by  the  war,  to  the  economic  effects  of  that  struggle  and 
of  the  transformation  of  the  labor  system,  and  to  the 
existence  of  a  great  business  depression  through 
out  the  country;  yet  unquestionably  a  large  part  was 
the  direct  result  of  misgovernment. 

Despite  the  fact  that  they  and  their  white  leaders 
held  the  offices  during  this  period  and  were  the  bene 
ficiaries  of  this  reign  of  extravagance  and  corruption, 
the 'state  was  not  entirely  an  Elysium  for  the  freedmen. 
As  elsewhere  in  the  South,  the  Ku  Klux  early  became 
active,  3  and  against  them  the  negroes  were  powerless 


1  For  an  extremely  interesting  account  of  South  Carolina  un 
der  negro  government  see  Pike,  The  Prostrate  State.     Also  Le- 
land,  A  Voice  from  South  Carolina ;  Reynolds,  Reconstruction  in 
South  Carolina;  Atlantic  Monthly,  XXXIX,  pp  177-194,  467-475, 
670-684.     One  of  the  most  candid  statements  will  be  found  in  an 
article    by    Governor    Chamberlain    on    Reconstruction    in    South 
Carolina,   Ibid,  LXXXVIII,   pp.    473-484. 

2  Pike,   p.   252;   message   of  Governor  Chamberlain  given   in 
Allen,    Governor    Chamberlain's    Administration   in    South    Caro 
lina,  p.   49. 

3  See  vols.  Ill,  IV  and  V  of  the  Ku  Klux  Reports  and  Rey 
nolds,  pp.   179-217. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  125 

to  protect  themselves.  In  some  cases  no  doubt  the 
operations  of  the  klans  were  to  a  certain  extent  justi 
fiable,  but  in  others  the  outrages  committed  not  only 
were  wholly  without  extenuation,  but  were  brutal  and 
fiendish  beyond  description.  Says  a  Democratic  writer 
on  the  period : 

"In  reference  to  South  Carolina,  the  report  of  the 
joint  select  committee  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress 
of  1872  contains  such  a  mass  of  revolting  details  that 
one  cannot  decide  where  to  begin  their  citation  or 
where  to  stop.  Murders,  or  attempts  to  murder,  are 
numerous.  Whippings  are  without  number.  Prob 
ably  the  most  cruel  and  cowardly  of  these  last  was  the 
whipping  of  Elias  Hill.  He  was  a  colored  man  who 
had,  from  infancy,  been  dwarfed  in  legs  and  arms. 
He  was  unable  to  use  either.  But  he  possessed  an 
intelligent  mind ;  had  learned  to  read ;  and  had  acquired 
an  unusual  amount  of  knowledge  for  one  in  his  cir 
cumstances.  He  was  a  Baptist  preacher.  He  was 
highly  respected  for  his  upright  character.  He  was 
eminently  religious,  and  was  greatly  revered  by  the 
people  of  his  own  race.  It  was  on  this  ground  that 
he  was  visited  by  the  Ku-Klux,  brutally  beaten,  and 
dragged  from  his  house  into  the  yard,  where  he  was 
left  in  the  cold  at  night,  unable  to  walk  or  crawl. 
After  the  fiends  had  left,  his  sister  brought  him  into 
the  house.  Although  this  man  was  a  Republican,  his 
testimony  gave  evidence  of  the  mildness  and  Christian 
forbearance  of  his  character,  as  well  as  his  freedom 
from  ill-will  toward  the  white  race.  In  answer  to  a 
question  as  to  his  feelings  towards  the  whites,  he  re-, 
plied  that  he  had  good-will,  love,  and  affection  toward 
them ;  but  that  he  feared  them.  He  said  that  he  had 
never  made  the  wrongs  and  cruelties  inflicted  by  the 


126  The  Hayes-Tilden 

white  people  on  his  race  the  subject  of  his  sermons; 
but  that  he  preached  the  .gospel  only  —  repentance 
toward  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  x 

As  a  result  of  outrages  such  as  this  and  also  of  an 
ever-present  fear  that  a  Democratic  victory  would 
result  in  a  reaction  towards  slavery,  the  negroes, 
despite  flagrant  misgovernment,  remained  Republican 
almost  to  a  man.  A  negro  would  come  to  his  former 
owner  for  advice  upon  every  other  subject,  but  let  the 
subject  of  politics  be  broached  and  he  became  "as  silent 
as  a  tombstone;"  for  this  was  "a  subject  with  which 
'Old  Massa'  had  nothing  to  do." 2  As  the  negroes 
outnumbered  the  whites  in  the  ratio  of  about  five  to 
three,  the  Republican  candidates  for  state  office,  no 
matter  how  dishonest  or  disreputable,  were  invariably 
chosen.  In  1868  R.  K.  Scott  was  elected  governor, 
in  1870  was  re-elected,  and  in  1872  was  succeeded  by 
the  notorious  F.  J.  Moses,  Jr.  3 

In  1874,  however,  Daniel  H.  Chamberlain,  a  man  of 
entirely  different  character,  was  elected.  Mr.  Cham 
berlain  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  was  a  grad 
uate  of  Yale,  had  studied  law  at  Harvard,  and 
had  served  as  a  lieutenant  in  the  colored  regiment 
commanded  by  Charles  Francis  Adams,  Jr.  After 
the  war  he  had  settled  in  South  Carolina  and  had 
engaged  in  cotton  planting.  In  the  constitutional 
convention  of  1868  he  had  borne  a  leading  part, 

1  Cox,    p.    456. 

2  Leland,    p.    40. 

3  Reynolds,  pp.   106-218. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  127 

and  had  soon  afterward  been  elected  to  fill  the 
attorney-generalship,  an  office  he  continued  to  fill 
for  four  years. 1  Whether  during  that  time  he 
managed  to  keep  his  hands  entirely  clean,  is  a  matter 
concerning  which  there  is  decided  difference  of  opin 
ion;  but  certain  it  is  that  the  fact  that  most  of  his 
colleagues  were  unscrupulous  men  created  an  impres 
sion  which  caused  many  people,  when  he  was  nomin 
ated  for  governor  in  1874,  to  regard  his  protestations 
of  zeal  for  reform  as  so  much  buncombe.  2 

But  no  sooner  was  Mr.  Chamberlain  inaugurated 
than  it  appeared  that  he  was  in  dead  earnest  about 
reform  —  that  whatever  his  course  in  the  past  he 
would  strive  to  preserve  "the  civilization  of  the  Puri 
tan  and  the  Cavalier,  of  the  Roundhead  and  the 
Huguenot." 3  He  set  his  face  against  the  corrupt 
schemes  of  his  party;  he  opposed  and,  with  the  help 
of  reform  Republican  and  Conservative  members, 
defeated  an  attempt  of  an  unscrupulous  element  in  the 
legislature  to  secure  the  removal  of  F.  L.  Cardoza, 
the  colored  state  treasurer,  who  obstructed  the  execu 
tion  of  nefarious  designs ;  he  vetoed  no  less  than  nine 
teen  vicious  bills  passed  during  the  first  session  of  the 
legislature;  he  secured  much  greater  economy;  and, 

1  Allen,    pp.    524-526. 

2  Chamberlain's  position  during  his   four  years  as  attorney- 
general   was  not   unlike   that   which   Tilden   long  occupied   when 
on  friendly  terms  with  Tweed.      See  Allen,   pp.   8-9,   140-151.     A 
Democratic  newspaper,   The  Neics  and  Courier,  said  on  May  14, 
1875  :   "It  is  our  fixed  belief  that  Mr.  Chamberlain  has  never,  in 
great  things  or  little,  consented  to,  or  aided  in,  any  fraud  upon 
this    people."     For   a   different   view   see    Reynolds,    pp.    465-470, 
492-494. 

3  Allen,    p.    201. 


128  The  Hayes-Tilden 

boldest  step  of  all,  he  refused  to  issue  commissions  to 
two  infamous  characters,  W.  J.  Whipper  and  ex-Gov 
ernor  Moses,  whom  the  legislature  had  chosen  circuit 
judges.  * 

By  these  actions  he  gained  the  hearty  commendation 
of  the  better  class  of  citizens  in  the  state  and  attracted 
much  attention  from  the  country  at  large.  The 
Charleston  News  and  Courier,  the  most  influential 
Democratic  newspaper  in  the  state,  declared  that  he 
"richly  deserves  the  confidence  of  the  people  of  this 
state,"  and  on  another  occasion  expressed  the  opinion 
that  "Governor  Chamberlain  has  done  for  the  people 
of  South  Carolina  what  no  other  living  man  could 
have  done."  2  Other  Democratic  newspapers  in  South 
t  Carolina  used  similar  language ;  while  many  periodicals 
outside  the  state,  irrespective  of  party,  commended 
his  course  in  high  terms.  3 

The  element  which  he  had  opposed  was  very  indig 
nant  at  his  courageous  stand.  A  vigorous  effort  was 
made  to  read  him  out  of  the  party  as  a  traitor.  The 
effort  culminated  in  April,  1876,  in  the  Republican 
state  convention  which  met  at  Columbia  to  choose 
delegates  to  the  Republican  national  convention. 
Governor  Chamberlain  announced  his  desire  to  go 
as  a  delegate,  but  there  appeared  to  be  little  chance 
that  he  would  be  able  to  do  so,  for  in  the  con 
test  for  the  temporary  chairmanship  his  friends 

1  For  a  very  full  account  of  these  matters  see  Allen,  pp.  10- 

Li  58. 

2  Quoted  by  Allen,   pp.   107,   199. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   106-114,   236-243;   South  Atlantic,  I,  pp.   332-340' 
H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  25-31. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  129 

were  defeated  by  a  vote  of  80  to  45.  The  triumph 
of  his  enemies  seemed  a  foregone  conclusion;  but  at 
four  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  April  I4th,  after  a  tu 
multuous- session  which  had  lasted  for  many  hours,  the 
governor  secured  the  floor,  and  by  one  of  the  most 
effective  speeches  on  record  so  confounded  his  enemies 
and  so  swayed  the  convention  that  when  he  concluded 
he  was  chosen  over  United  States  Senator  Patterson 
by  an  overwhelming  majority. 1 

The  activity  of  Governor  Chamberlain  in  the  cause 
of  good  government  was  such  that  for  a  long  time  the 
Democrats  were  undecided  whether  to  nominate  any 
one  to  oppose  him.  Those  who  favored  the  policy  of 
abstaining  from  such  a  nomination  were  known  as  the 
"Co-operationists,"  while  those  who  wished  to  name 
a  full  ticket  received  the  name  of  "Straight-outers."  2 
The  Charleston  News  and  Courier  was  especially  active 
in  endeavoring  to  prevent  a  separate  nomination.  It 
advocated  concentrating  all  "our  efforts  on  the  other 
state  officers  and  the  members  of  the  legislature.  With 
Mr.  Chamberlain  as  governor,  and  a  Conservative 
Democratic  majority,  or  thereabouts,  in  the  lower 
house,  the  state,  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  would 
be  safe.  In  attempting  to  gain  more  we  might  lose 

1  Allen,  258-271  ;  New  York  Times  and  New  York  Herald, 
April  16th.  The  correspondent  of  the  Times  called  Chamberlain's 
speech  "one  of  'the  grandest  orations  ever  listened  to  in  Amer 
ica,"  while  the  correspondent  of  the  Washington  Chronicle  des 
cribed  it  in  equally  high  terms.  Patterson  was  working  for  the 
nomination  of  Governor  Morton  for  the  Presidency.  At  Cincin 
nati  Chamberlain  supported  Bristow  and  then  Hayes.  The  vote 
of  the  delegation  was  divided. 

2  Allen,  pp.  258-272;  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d 
Sess.,  pp.  27-32. 


130  The  Playes-Tilden 

everything."  In  arguing  in  support  of  this  plan  the 
paper  declared  —  and  the  statement  is  most  significant 
in  the  light  of  later  events  —  that  the  Republican  ma 
jority  could  be  overcome  in  "only  one  way :  by  armed 
force."  i 

In  the  end  the  "Straight-outers"  were  victorious.  A 
number  of  causes  contributed  to  this  result.  Cham 
berlain,  while  a  reformer,  was,  after  all,  a  Republican 
and  a  native  of  Massachusetts;  these  facts  weighed 
heavily  against  him  in  the  minds  of  most  of  the  white 
inhabitants  of  South  Carolina.  In  addition  it  was 
felt  by  many  that  to  adopt  the  "Co-operationist"  policy 
would  lessen  the  chances  of  choosing  Democratic  Pres 
idential  electors,  while  it  was  recognized  that  an  in 
dorsement  of  Chamberlain  would  weaken  the  Demo 
cratic  position  in  the  country  at  large,  because  such 
an  indorsement  would  be  tantamount  to  an  admission 
that  here  at  last  was  an  honest  "carpet-bagger."  All 
these  motives,  together  with  hunger  for  office  and 
pressure  from  Democratic  politicians  from  outside  the 
state,  weighed  heavily  with  many  Democratic  leaders 
and  impelled  them  to  adopt  a  "rule  or  ruin"  policy.  2 
Nevertheless  the  "Straight-out"  movement  might  have 
failed  had  it  not  been  for  an  event  which  greatly  inten 
sified  partisan  feeling  and  forced  Governor  Chamber- 


1  May  8th.     Italics  so  printed  in  original.     In  July  the  paper 
published   a   series    of   elaborate   articles   defending   his    admin 
istration. 

2  Allen,  pp.  307-331,  336.     See  also  pp.   181,  244-245,  of  Vol. 
XII  of  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers  ;  the  reference  is  to  a 
scries    of    articles    by    F.    A.    Porcher    on    the    Last    Chapter    of 
Reconstruction   in   South   Carolina. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  131 

lain  to  take  a  stand  which  alienated  many  of  the  white 
inhabitants.  1 

This  event  was  the  so-called  "Hamburg  Massacre," 
which  took  place  in  Aiken  county  on  the  8th  of  July. 
The  massacre  grew  out  of  an  incident  which  occurred 
on  the  4th.  On  that  day  while  the  negro  militia  com 
pany  of  the  town  was  marching  on  one  of  the  public 
streets  two  young  %  white  men  drove  up  in  a  buggy. 
According  to  one  version  of  the  affair  the  company 
purposely  blocked  up  the  entire  street  and  refused  to 
allow  the  whites  to  pass;  according  to  the  other  the 
whites,  disdaining  to  turn  to  one  side,  drove  against 
the  head  of  the  column  and  ordered  the  company  to 
break  ranks  and  let  them  through.2  At  any  rate  a 
wordy  altercation  followed,  which  finally  resulted  in 
the  negroes  allowing  the  whites  to  pass.  Complaint 
was  later  made  by  the  father  of  one  of  the  young  men 
before  Trial  Justice  Rivers,  a  colored  man,  against 
Dock  Adams,  the  captain  of  the  company,  for  obstruct 
ing  the  highway.  After  a  stormy  preliminary  hearing 
on  the  6th  the  case  was  postponed  until  the  8th.  On 
that  day  about  a  hundred  armed  white  men  assembled 
in  the  town;  and  Adams,  on  the  plea  that  he  feared 
violence,  failed  to  appear  before  the  justice  and  took 
refuge  with  other  negroes  in  the  armory.  A  demand 
was  then  made  by  General  M.  C.  Butler,  who  was  act 
ing  as  attorney  for  the  prosecution,  and  who  was  later 

Papers'  VoL  XI1'  p-  245;  8outh 


.  .?  The  negro  companies  were  viewed  with  great  dislike  by  the 
whites.     The  members  were  often  insolent  and  lawless. 


132  The  Hayes-Til  den 

United  States  senator  from  South  Carolina,  that  the 
militia  should  give  up  their  arms  to  the  whites. 1  The 
demand  was  refused,  and  firing  began.  One  white 
was  killed  early  in  the  conflict;  but  his  fellows  bom 
barded  the  armory  with  a  cannon  brought  over  from 
Augusta,  Georgia ;  and  after  a  time  the  negroes,  hav 
ing  exhausted  about  all  their  ammunition,  attempted 
to  escape.  Some  succeeded,  but  James  Cook,  the  col 
ored  town  marshall,  who  lived  in  the  armory,  was 
killed;  and  about  twenty-five  others  were  captured. 
Of  these,  five  were  afterwards  murdered  in  cold  blood, 
and  three  were  badly  wounded.  Not  content  with 
this  violence,  some  of  the  mob  then  robbed  and  mal 
treated  a  number  of  other  negroes,  including  Trial  Jus 
tice  Rivers. 2 

As  soon  as  he  received  notice  of  the  affair  Governor 
Chamberlain  sent  the  attorney-general  to  make  an 
investigation,  announced  his  intention  to  do  all  in  his 
power  to  bring  the  offenders  to  justice,  and  asked  the 
President  whether  the  general  government  would  assist 
him  in  maintaining  order  in  case  violence  in  the 
state  should  get  beyond  the  control  of  the  state  au 
thorities.  3  His  attitude  in  the  matter  was  indorsed 
by  some  of  the  more  liberal  whites,  but  was  severely 


1  The  status  of  the  negro  company  was  somewnat  Irregular ; 
the  whites  claimed  that  it  had  no  right  to  the  arms.     For  the  offi 
cial  papers  relating  to  the  company's  status  see  S.  Mis.  Doc.  No. 
48,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.   582  et  seq. 

2  My   account   is   based  upon  Allen,   pp.    307-330;    the   South 
Atlantic,  I,  pp.  412-413  ;  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XII, 
pp.   245-252  ;   Leland,  pp.   156-157  ;   and  the  great  mass  of  testi 
mony  in  S.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  48,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  and  H.  R.  Mis. 
Doc.  No.   31,  44th  Cong.   2d  Sess. 

3  Allen,  pp.   313   et  seq. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  133 

criticised  by  persons  in  whose  estimation  the  killing  of 
a  few  negroes  was  not  a  matter  of  very  great  import 
ance.  1 

The  passions  and  prejudices  aroused  at  this  time 
proved  decisive  in  determining  the  action  of  the  Dem 
ocrats.  2  While  the  excitement  was  at  its  height  the 
state  executive  committee  issued  a  call  for  a  conven 
tion  to  meet  at  Columbia  on  the  I5th  of  August. 
When  the  convention  assembled  the  "Co-operationists" 
did  their  best  to  secure  the  adoption  of  a  "watch  and 
wait"  policy ;  but  the  "Straight-outers"  carried  through 
a  resolution  "to  nominate  candidates  for  governor  and 
other  state  officers."  3 

Having  decided  upon  the  policy  to  pursue,  the  con 
vention  chose  as  its  nominee  General  Wade  Hampton. 
The  choice  was  a  wise  one,  perhaps  the  wisest  that 
could  have  been  made.  General  Hampton  was  a  mem 
ber  of  the  old  aristocracy^  and  had  been  one  of  the 
wealthiest  men  in  the  state.  In  the  Rebellion  he  had 
commanded  Lee's  cavalry  after  the  death  of  J.  E.  B. 
Stuart,  had  later  unsuccessfully  opposed  Sherman's 
march  through  the  Carolinas,  and  while  he  had  won 


1  The  News  and  Courier  said :     "Governor  Chamberlain  ap 
pears   to    think   that   a   company   of   United    States   soldiers   will 
have  a  more  sedative  effect  than  rifle  clubs  or  civil  posses.     This 
was  the  position  taken  a  few  weeks  ago  by  the  newspapers  that 
berate  Governor  Chamberlain  for  calling  for  troops.     These  very 
journals,  at  the  time  of  the  Combahee  troubles,  were  clamorous 
for  troops,  and  were  furious  in  their  denunciations  of  Governor 
Chamberlain  because  he  would  not  call  for  them." 

2  South  Atlantic,  I,  p.   414. 

3  Allen,  pp.   335-336;   South  Atlantic,  I,  pp.   416-427;  Annual 
Cyclopaedia,  1876,  p.   721;  Reynolds,  pp.   347-350;   files  of  Neivs 
and  Courier  and  of  the  Columbia  Union  Herald 

10 


134  The  Hayes-Tilden 

no  great  successes  had  shown  much  military  ability. 
He  had  early  accepted  the  results  of  the  war,  and  had 
been  one  of  the  first  of  the  Southern  leaders  to  advo 
cate  a  liberal  policy  towards  the  freedmen.  While  not 
the  possessor  of  oratorical  nor  even  of  intellectual  gifts 
of  the  highest  order,  he  yet  had  exactly  the  qualities  of 
leadership  indispensable  for  success  in  the  present 
emergency. 1 

The  platform  on  which  he  was  nominated  professed 
acceptance  of  the  three  war  Amendments ;  stated  that 
"we  turn  from  the  settled  and  final  past  to  the  great, 
living,  and  momentous  issues  of  the  present  and  the 
future;"  and  contained  a  bitter  arraignment  of  the 
Republican  party,  for  "arraying  race  against  race,"  for 
"prostituting  the  elective  franchise"  and  "tampering 
with  the  ballot-box,"  and  for  having  brought  about  a 
condition  of  "venality  and  corruption"  unparalleled  in 
history.  2  In  the  opinion  of  The  Nation,  the  platform 
contained  "all  the  things  that  proper  platforms  have 
to  contain  in  these  days  —  acceptance  of  the  Constitu 
tional  Amendments  and  other  results  of  the  war,  devo 
tion  to  equal  rights,  love  of  peace  and  order,  immeas 
urable  hatred  of  theft,  fraud,  and  other  forms  of  vil 
lainy.  .  .  .  The  only  thing  the  Republicans  can  say 
against  it  is  that  it  is  hypocritical."  3 

The  Republicans  did  not  hold  their  convention  until 


1  For  Hampton's  character  see  South  Atlantic,  I,  pp.  416-419. 
and    424;    Sewanee   Revieiv,  X,    pp.    364-373;    McClure,    Recollec 
tions  of  Half  a  Century,  pp.  406-414. 

2  Annual   Cyclopaedia,   1876,   p.    721. 

3  Vol.   XXIII,  p.   111. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  135 

almost  a  month  later. l  When  it  assembled  on  the  I3th 
of  September,  a  strong  effort  was  made  by  R.  B.  El 
liott,  the  mulatto  speaker  of  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives,  C.  C.  Bovven,  B.  F.  Whittemore,  and  other 
anti-reformers,  to  overthrow  Chamberlain.  A  bitter 
contest  followed  in  which  the  governor  was  only  par 
tially  victorious.  He  secured  the  adoption  of  a  plat 
form  pledging  a  large  number  of  specific  reforms,  and 
also  secured  his  own  renomination  as  well  as  that  of 
State  Treasurer  Cardoza  and  others  of  his  adherents  ; 
but  unfortunately  he  was  unable  to  prevent  the  conven 
tion  from  putting  R.  B.  Elliott,  T.  C.  Dunn,  and  others 
of  the  most  corrupt  element  in  the  party  on  the  ticket. 
By  this  step  a  considerable  number  of  honest  men  of 
both  races  were  alienated. 2 

The  Democrats  did  not  wait  for  the  Republican  con 
vention  to  be  over  before  beginning  their  campaign. 
All  sections  of  the  party  at  once  united  and  entered 
upon  a  determined  and  wonderfully  enthusiastic  effort 
to  "redeem"  the  state.  The  plan  of  procedure  was  to 
attempt  to  conciliate  the  blacks  by  making  glowing 
promises  3  and  by  nominating  negroes  for  the  legis 
lature  in  some  of  the  counties  in  which  the  Republican 
majorities  were  too  large  to  overcome, 4  and  at  the 

1  For  accounts  of  the  convention  see  Allen,  pp.  352-354  ;  Rey 
nolds,  pp.  362-3.72.  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  311-316; 
Atlantic,  XXXIX,  p.  186;  Annual  Cyclopaedia  for  1876,  p.  722; 
files  of  the  New  York  World,  Herald,  and  Times,  and  of  the 
Charleston  News  and  Courier,  and  the  Columbia  Union  Herald. 
VII2  Alle"'  PP'  360'  504-505  I  Chamberlain  in  Atlantic,  LXXXX- 

£   South  Atlantic,  I,  pp.  45-50;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  1, 
44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  pp.   306-310 
4  Atlantic,   XXXIX,    p.    184. 


136  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

same  time  to  bring  forms  of  pressure  to  bear  which 
would  convince  the  recalcitrant  that  it  would  be  safer 
to  affiliate  with  the  Democracy.  The  leaders  of  the 
party  fully  understood  that  only  by  drastic  methods 
could  they  hope  to  overcome  the  large  Republican  ma 
jority.  Resort  was  therefore  had  to  the  "Mississippi 
plan."  "Rifle-clubs,"  "artillery  companies,"  "sabre 
clubs,"  uniformed  in  red  shirts  and  fully  armed,  were 
organized  throughout  the  state.  They  at  once  began 
systematically  to  appear  at  Republican  meetings  and 
demand  a  division  of  time.  As  an  example  of  how  they 
behaved  at  these  meetings  may  be  taken  the  following 
description  by  Governor  Chamberlain,  who  at  the  time 
the  incidents  occurred  was  making  a  tour  of  the  state 
for  the  purpose  of  defending  his  administration  and 
securing  a  renomination.  Says  Mr.  Chamberlain: 

"On  the  return  of  Judge  Hoge  and  Mr.  Jillson  from 
Newberry  on  the  iQth  of  August,  they  strongly  ad 
vised  the  abandonment  of  the  meeting  at  Abbeville  in 
view  of  their  experience  at  Newberry,  and  especially 
on  account  of  a  violent  and  threatening  harangue  made 
at  the  depot  at  Newberry  on  the  morning  of  the  I9th, 
to  a  band  of  his  partisans,  by  Col.  D.  Wyatt  Aiken.  I 
replied  that  I  should  keep  my  engagement  at  Abbeville 
from  a  sense  of  imperative  duty  to  my  Republican 
friends  there.  Unwilling  to  allow  me  to  go  alone, 
these  gentlemen  gallantly  consented  to  accompany  me 
on  the  2  ist  to  Abbeville  Court  House.  On  arriving 
at  Abbeville,  I  found  our  Republican  friends,  as  at 
Newberry,  firmly  convinced  that  if  we  held  our  meet 
ing  prudence  would  compel  us  to  allow  the  Democrats 
to  occupy  half  the  time,  and  even  then  they  were 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  137 

greatly  apprehensive  of  trouble.  An  arrangement  was 
accordingly  entered  into  by  which  three  speakers  from 
each  party  were  to  take  part  in  the  meeting.  At  the 
hour  appointed  we  proceeded  to  the  place  of  meeting, 
where  we  found  the  Republicans  assembled,  after  the 
manner  of  ordinary  political  meetings.  As  soon,  how 
ever,  as  the  Republicans  were  assembled,  companies 
of  mounted  white  men,  marching  in  martial  order, 
and  under  the  command  of  officers  or  persons  who 
gave  orders  which  were  obeyed,  began  to  pour  over 
the  hill  in  front  of  the  stand  and  to  take  their  places 
at  the  meeting.  At  this  time  I  sat  beside  General 
McGowan,  Nand  we  agreed  in  our  estimate  that  there 
were  from  800  to  1,000  mounted  white  men  present. 
They  came,  as  I  know,  from  Edgefield  County,  and, 
as  I  was  informed,  from  Newberry,  Anderson,  and 
Laurens  Counties,  as  well  as  from  Abbeville  County. 
When  fully  assembled,  they  covered  more  than  one-half 
the  space  around  the  stand,  besides  entirely  encircling 
the  whole  meeting  with  mounted  men.  I  spoke  first. 
In  the  course  of  my  speech,  in  response  to  loud  and 
repeated  cries  from  the  white  men,  'How  about  Ham 
burg,'  'Tell  us  about  Hamburg/  I  replied,  'Yes,  I  wall 
tell  you  about  Hamburg,'  whereupon  I  saw  a  sudden 
crowding  towards  the  stand  by  the  mounted  white 
men  on  my  right  and  heard  distinctly  the  click  of  a 
considerable  number  of  pistols. 

"I  was  followed  by  Col.  D.  Wyatt  Aiken,  in  a  speech 
filled  to  overflowing  with  the  spirit  of  intolerance  and 
violence.  With  his  thousand  mounted  and  armed  par 
tisans  cheering  him  on,  he  shouted  to  the  five  or  six 
hundred  colored  Republicans,  'If  you  want  war  you 
can  have  it  —  yes,  war  to  the  knife,  and  the  knife  to 
the  hilt/  With  a  thousand  armed  white  men  drinking 
in  his  words,  he  singled  out  one  colored  man  in  the 
crowd  for  special  personal  denunciation.  .  .  .  Later  in 


138  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  day  Mr.  Jillson  while  speaking  was  so  greatly 
interrupted  by  the  white  men  that  he  was  unable  to 
make  a  connected  speech  or  to  pursue  his  intended 
line  of  argument.  After  the  meeting  was  closed  and 
while  the  colored  republicans  were  carrying  a  United 
States  flag  past  the  public  square  in  the  village,  an 
effort  was  made  by  a  party  of  mounted  white  men  to 
snatch  it  from  them,  fifteen  or  twenty  pistols  were 
discharged  in  the  air,  and  a  general  riot  was  thereby 
made  imminent."  1 

The  object  of  activity  such  as  this  was  well  set  forth 
at  the  time  by  H.  V.  Redfield  in  a  letter  to  the  Cincin 
nati  Commercial.  "The  outsider,"  wrote  he,  "is  apt  to 
be  puzzled  by  accounts  of  affairs  here.  He  may  not 
understand  the  formation  of  rifle-clubs,  rifle-teams, 
artillery  companies,  among  the  whites.  What  are  they 
afraid  of?  They  are  not  afraid  of  anything.  Why, 
then,  this  arming?  They  intend  to  carry  this  election, 
if  it  is  possible  to  do  so.  The  programme  is  to  have 
rifle-clubs  all  over  the  state,  and,  while  avoiding  actual 
bloodshed  as  much  as  possible,  to  so  impress  the  blacks 
that  they,  or  a  number  of  them,  will  feel  impelled  to 
vote  with  the  whites  out  of  actual  fear.  The  blacks  are 
timid  by  nature,  timid  by  habit,  timid  by  education.  A 
display  of  force  unnerves  them.  The  whites  under 
stand  this,  and  an  immense  marching  about  at  night, 


1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess,  pp. 
359-360.  In  pages  both  before  and  following  there  are  accounts 
of  similar  meetings  at  other  places.  For  yet  other  accounts  see 
Ibid,  pp.  187,  223,  228,  230,  231,  239,  243,  246,279,  359,  395,  459, 
460;  Part  2,  pp.  153,  228,  237;  and  Part  3,  pp.  117.  197,  224. 
Some  of  this  evidence  was  given  by  officers  of  the  United  States 
army.  See  also  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XII,  pp. 
309-310.  Chamberlain's  accounts  are  by  no  means  exaggerated, 
if  one  is  to  believe  the  stories  told  by  South  Carolinians  today. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  139 

and  appearance  at  any  republican  meeting  'to  divide 
time1  is  with  a  view  to  impress  the  blacks  with  a  sense 
of  the  danger  of  longer  holding  out  against  white 
rule."  i 

The  Democrats,  in  fact,  did  everything  in  their 
power  to  produce  a  reign  of  terror  among  the  freed- 
men.  Threats  of  violence  flew  thick  as  birds  in  spring ; 
the  homes  of  colored  men  were  fired  into  at  night ;  and 
negroes  were  whipped,  assaulted,  and  in  some  in 
stances  murdered.2 

An  equally  effective  weapon  used  against  the  blacks 
was  industrial  proscription.  Democrats  openly  an 
nounced  that  they  would  not  employ  Republicans  nor 
rent  land  to  them,  and  the  Democratic  newspapers  were 
filled  with  resolutions  to  that  effect.  Out  of  the  many 
such  resolutions  which  might  be  cited,  this  one,  taken 
from  the  News  and  Courier  for  September  i8th,  will 
suffice : 

"The  following  resolutions,  adopted  by  the  Easter- 
lin's  Mill  Democratic  Club,  are  commended  to  the  at 
tention  of  the  different  clubs  throughout  the  state. 
Similar  resolutions  have  been  adopted  by  the  Willow 
Township,  Graham's,  and  Bamberg  clubs,  and  no  doubt 
by  many  other  clubs  in  Orangeburgh  and  Barnwell 
Counties.  It  is  intended  that  the  names  of  the  obnox 
ious  leaders  in  each  township  be  sent  to  the  different 
clubs  throughout  the  county : 

"i.     Resolved,     That  we  will  not  rent  land  to  any 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  365. 

2  For  evidence  on  these  points  see  index  to  Ibid,  pp.  470-471. 
The  use  of  violence  is  not  now  denied  by  candid  persons. — See 
Sewanee  Review,  X,  p.  367,  and  Atlantic,  LXXXVIII,  p.  480. 


140  The  Hayes-Tilden 

radical  leader,  or  any  member  of  his  family,  or  furnish 
a  home,  or  give  employment  to  any  such  leader  or  any 
member  of  his  family. 

"2.  That  we  will  not  furnish  any  such  leader,  or 
any  member  of  his  family,  any  supplies,  such  as  pro 
visions,  farm-implements,  stock,  etc.,  except  so  far  as 
contracts  for  the  present  year  are  concerned. 

"3.  That  we  will  not  purchase  anything  any  radical 
leader  or  any  member  of  his  family  may  offer  for  sale, 
or  sell  any  such  leader  or  any  member  of  his  family 
anything  whatever. 

"4.  That  the  names  of  such  persons  who  may  be 
considered  leaders  be  furnished  to  this  club  at  the  ear 
liest  date,  and  that  a  list  of  the  same  be  furnished  each 
member  of  the  club."  1 

The  Republicans,  on  their  part,  worked  unceasingly 
to  counteract  the  Democratic  efforts.  Speakers  played 
upon  the  freedman's  ever-present  fear  of  being  once 
more  reduced  to  slavery.  2  Democratic  negroes  were 
stripped  naked  and  beaten  with  whips  and  clubs,  or  were 
cut  with  knives  or  razors.  According  to  the  Democratic 
members  of  an  investigating  committee  later  sent  out 
by  the  Federal  House  of  Representatives,  "Women 
utterly  refused  to  have  any  intercourse  \vith  men  of 
their  own  race  who  voted  against  the  Republicans. 
One  instance  was  proven  of  the  actual  desertion  of  a 


1  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  39.  Other  in 
stances  are  given  on  the  same  page.  See  also  Ibid,  Mis.  Doc.  No. 
31,  Part  1,  pp.  219,  221,  223,  224,  228,  237,  244,  260,  264,  271,  291. 
General  M.  C.  Butler  of  Hamburg  fame  later  testified  that  he 
had  told  his  tenants  that  if  they  voted  the  Republican  ticket 
they  would  have  to  leave  his  plantation. — First  report  just 
quoted,  pp.  38-39. 

2  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XII,  p.  310. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  141 

wife  with  the  children  of  a  husband  because  he  made 
campaign  speeches  for  the  Democrats."  l  But,  com 
pared  with  the  intimidation  practiced  by  their  oppon 
ents,  the  amount  of  which  the  Republicans  were  guilty 
appears  to  have  been  comparatively  small;  while  the 
very  abhorrence  in  which  Democratic  negroes  were 
held  by  the  people  of  their  own  color  is  pretty  conclu 
sive  proof  that  when  left  alone  the  negroes  were  almost 
unanimously  Republican.  The  freedmen  not  only 
employed  violence  in  preventing  desertions,  but,  exas 
perated  by  the  Democratic  invasions  of  their  meetings, 
they  also  showed  in  some  localities  an  unexpected 
determination  to  resist  the  whites.  They  began  to 
carry  arms  to  their  meetings,  and  to  indulge  in  the 
most  diabolical  threats.  2 

In  the  month  of  September  there  were,  in  fact,  two 
serious  collisions  between  the  races.  The  first  took 
place  in  Charleston  on  the  6th,  and  was  due  to  an 
unjustifiable  attempt  on  the  part  of  colored  Republicans 
to  call  two  colored  Democratic  speakers  to  account  for 
their  utterances.  Before  the  riot  was  subdued  by  the 
Republican  authorities  several  persons  on  both  sides 


1  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  11-12.  For 
other  evidence  along  this  line  see  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  1, 
pp.  399,  417,  422,  436,  438,  446.  One  negro  said  that  on  a 
certain  occasion  when  he  hurrahed  for  Hampton,  men  and 
women  of  his  race  fell  upon  him  "the  same  as  ants,"  and  tore 
off  all  his  clothing  except  his  trousers.  The  same  negro  stated 
that  the  reason  he  voted  the  Democratic  ticket  was  that  he  was 
able  to  borrow  money  from  a  Democrat,  who  asked  no  questions 
about  repayment.  "I  thought  the  Democratic  party  was  good, 
and  we'll  give  them  our  support." — Ibid,  402. 

2  Atlantic,  XXXIX,  p.  185. 


142  The  Hayes-Tilden 

had  been  injured,  and  one  white  man  had  been  fatally 
wounded. 1 

The  other  riot  was  a  far  more  serious  affair.  It 
occurred  at  Ellenton,  in  the  same  county  in  which 
Hamburg  was  situated.  As  a  result  of  race  and  poli 
tical  hatreds,  conditions  in  that  section  had  for  some 
time  been  favorable  for  an  outbreak.  An  occasion 
was  offered  by  the  attempt  of  two  negroes  to  commit 
a  robbery.  The  opportunity  "to  teach  the  negroes  a 
lesson"  was  too  favorable  to  be  lost.  Rifle-clubs  from 
a  radius  of  thirty  miles  collected ;  all  the  negroes  of 
the  locality  became  alarmed ;  conflicts  took  place ;  and 
before  quiet  was  restored  one  or  two  whites  and  from 
fifteen  to  thirty  negroes  had  lost  their  lives.  Most  and 
probably  all  of  the  negroes  killed  were  wholly  inno 
cent  of  the  original  offense,  and  many  were  simply  shot 
down.  Particularly  cold-blooded  was  the  murder  of 
Simon  P.  Coker,  a  member  of  the  legislature.  A  far 
greater  massacre  was  prevented  only  by  the  opportune 
arrival  of  a  company  of  United  States  troops,  who 
saved  about  one  hundred  colored  men  surrounded  in 
a  swamp.  Even  then  the  killing  of  colored  men  con 
tinued  for  several  days.  2 

In  view  of  the  violence  and  disorder  in  the  state, 
Governor  Chamberlain  on  October  7th  issued  a  proc- 


1  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XII,  pp.  554-558  ;  Allen, 
p.  351  ;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp. 
1  et  seq. 

2  My  account  of  the  Ellenton  affair  is  based  chiefly  on  South 
ern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  pp.  47-H3  ;  and  on  the  enor 
mous  mass  of  evidence  contained  in  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  44th 
Cong.  2d  Sess.,  and  in  S.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  48,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  143 

lamation  ordering  the  rifle-clubs  and  other  military 
organizations  not  a  part  of  the  militia  to  disband.  As 
the  disturbances  continued  and  the  order  was  not 
obeyed,  he  soon  afterwards  appealed  to  the  President 
for  troops.  The  President  accordingly  issued  a  proc 
lamation  against  the  rifle-clubs,  and  sent  more  than 
thirty  companies  of  United  States  troops  into  the 
state. l 

These  actions  on  the  part  of  the  governor  and  the 
President  evoked,  of  course,  a  storm  of  criticism. 2  It 
was  denied  by  the  Democrats  that  the  call  for  troops 
was  warranted  by  the  facts.  It  was  said  that  Cham 
berlain  ought  to  have  called  upon  the  rifle-clubs  to  put 
down  the  disorders.  It  was  urged  that  he  ought  to 
have  convoked  the  legislature.  On  the  whole,  how 
ever,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  use  of  troops 
was  justifiable,  even  though  it  be  granted  that  the 
governor  and  the  President  were  actuated  by  partisan 
motives.  The  governor  unquestionably  showed  wis 
dom  in  not  attempting  to  make  use  of  the  negro  militia, 
for  that  would  have  brought  on  yet  more  terrible  con 
sequences  ;  while,  as  for  making  use  of  the  rifle-clubs, 
that,  as  he  remarked,  would  have  been  calling  in  the 

1  Annual  Cyclopaedia,   1876,   pp.    719-720,  and  Allen,  pp.   365- 

2  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  338- 
40,   Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  pp.   53-55.     Some 

of  the  judges  denied  Chamberlain's  charges;  some  even  repre 
sented  South  Carolina  as  a  very  elysium  of  peace  and  good 
order.  A  United  States  army  officer  later  testified  that  the 
judges  lied.  Judge  Wiggin,  whose  circuit  embraced  the  coun 
ties  of  Aiken  and  Barnwell,  stated  that  domestic  violence  cer 
tainly  existed  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  sending  of 
troops  had  saved  many  lives. — H.  R.  Mis.  Doc  No  31  Part  4 
45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  p.  340. 


The  Hayes-Til  den 

wolves  to  guard  the  sheep. 1    The  use  of  troops  in  an 
election  is,  to  be  sure,  to  be  deplored  as  a  usual  thing ; 
but  conditions  in  South  Carolina  were  such  that  the 
only  pity  was  there  were  not  more  troops  available. 
As  for  the  absurd  claim  that  the  presence  of  the  troops 
would  scare  the  negroes  into  voting  the  Republican 
ticket,2  the  later  admission  by  the  Democratic  mem 
bers  of  a  House  investigating  committee  that  the  bear 
ing  of  the  troops  "was  both  prudent  and  wise"  3  is 
sufficient  refutation.     The   "true  inwardness"   of  the 
outcry  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  presence  of  the  troops 
interfered  with  the  Democratic  plan  of  campaign.    Had 
the  troops  not  been  sent,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  Democrats  would  have  carried  the  state  by  a  large 
majority.  But  as  General  N.  P.  Banks  later  remarked : 
"The  last  card  —  one  which  had  been  played  with  so 
much  success  in  adjoining  states,  upon  which  in  fact 
every  expectation  of  success  depended,  the  revolver 
and  rifle,  which  had  been  carefully  dealt  out,  according 
to  the  rules  of  the  game  as  practiced  in  the  best  politi 
cal  society,  to  each  member  of  the  club  organized  for 
intellectual  and  social  pleasures  only  —  was  unexpect 
edly  and  scandalously  trumped  by  a  Federal  bayonet."  ' 
The  presence  of  the  troops  did  much  to  secure  a 
more  peaceful  condition  of  affairs.     After  the  issuance 
of  the  President's  proclamation  there  was  but  one  con 
siderable  riot.     This  occurred  at  a  Republican  meeting 

1  Allen,   p.    387.     For  Chamberlain's   defence   see  New  York 
Tribune  for  October  5th  and  November  2d  . 

2  E.  g.,  New  York  Herald  of  Oct.  28th. 

3  H    R    R.  No.   175,   Part  I,   44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,  p.   12. 

4  Ibid,  Part   2,   p.   227. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  145 

held  at  Cainhoy  near  Charleston.  As  usual  the  Demo 
crats  had  forced  the  Republicans  to  divide  time,  and 
while  the  meeting  was  in  progress  some  young  white 
men  seized  some  guns  belonging  to  the  negroes.  A 
fight  ensued  in  which  the  negroes  for  once  stood  their 
ground,  killed  six  of  the  whites,  and  put  the  rest  to 
flight,  with  the  loss  of  but  one  of  their  own  number.  * 
In  all  places  where  troops  were  stationed  the  negroes 
were  comparatively  safe  from  physical  violence,  for  so 
thoroughly,  had  South  Carolinians  learned  to  respect 
the  United  States  that  the  presence  of  a  single  blue  uni 
form  was  sufficient  to  hold  a  whole  company  of  "red- 
shirts"  in  check.  In  the  back  country  where  there 
were  no  troops,  however,  there  continued  to  be  some 
thing  of  a  reign  of  terror  among  the  freedmen. 

The  election  proper  was  attended  with  terrible  ex 
citement,  yet  on  the  whole  it  was  more  peaceable  than 
might  have  been  anticipated.  In  some  respects,  how 
ever,  it  was  scarcely  more  than  a  farce.  While  there 
.  were  no  great  riots,  there  were  minor  disturbances  at 
many  places,  and  there  was  much  intimidation  of  indi 
viduals,  buying  of  votes,  and  repeating.  In  Charles 
ton,  Beaufort,  and  other  "black  counties"  bands  of 
negroes,  armed  with  guns,  clubs,  swords,  knives,  bay 
onets,  and  other  weapons,  surrounded  some  of  the 
polls ;  swore  they  would  "kill  any  -  -  Democratic 
nigger"  who  offered  to  vote;  and  violently  handled 
some  who  disregarded  the  warning.  In  these  counties 

1  For  some  of  the  evidence  see  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  44th 
Cons.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  160-260.  See  also  Southern  Historical  Society 
Papers,  pp.  57-59,  for  a  very  partisan  account. 


146  The  Hayes-TilJen 

the  Republicans  also  appear  to  have  done  considerable 
repeating. l  In  other  counties  similar  tactics  were 
pursued  to  an  even  greater  degree  by  the  Democrats. 
Negroes  and  even  white  election  officials  were  intimi 
dated  and  in  some  cases  assaulted,  and  parties  of  white 
men  rode  about  from  poll  to  poll  casting  their  votes  at 
each.  2  In  this  sort  of  work  the  native  whites  were 
materially  aided  by  Georgians  and  North  Carolinians, 
who  crossed  the  border  to  help  their  fellow  Democrats.3 
Since  the  state  census  of  1875  gives  the  number  of 
males  of  voting  age  and  since  the  election  managers 
in  all  but  four  counties  classified  the  voters  according 
to  color,  it  is  possible  to  arrive  at  some  conclusions  by 
a  process  of  comparison. 4  Such  a  study  seems  to 
show  that  by  far  the  greater  amount  of  illegal  voting 
was  done  by  the  whites.  In  only  two  counties  did  the 
colored  vote  exceed  the  census  figures,  the  excess  being 
928 ;  in  the  other  counties  5  the  negro  vote  fell  below 
the  census  figures  by  6,727.  In  only  four  counties  did 
the  white  vote  fall  below  the  census  figures,  the  de 
crease  in  these  being  328;  in  all  the  other  counties, 
exclusive  of  those  in  which  no  classification  was  made, 
there  was  an  excess  amounting  to  3,505,  while  in  the 
non-classified  counties  there  was  an  estimated  excess 


1  See  Atlantic,  XXXIX,  p.  187  ;  index  to  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No. 
31    Part  1,  pp.  471-472  ;  index  to  S.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  48,  p.  xiii. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  x-xiii;  House  report  just  cited,  pp.  470-471;  Atlan- 

3  Ibid;   House  report,   Part  1,  pp.   235,   241;   S.   Mis.   Doc.   No. 
48,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  328,  352,  410,  675,  861. 

4  For  figures  see  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d 
Sess.,  p.  62.  The  four  counties  were  Charleston,  Laurens,  Edge- 
field,  and  Williamsburgh. 

5  Disregarding  the  four  mentioned. 


Disputed  Election  of  iSjd  147 

of  3,026.  In  only  one  county,  namely  Barmvell,  do 
the  figures  show  conclusively  that  there  was  Republican 
repeating.  Most  of  this  repeating  was  done  in  Rob- 
bins  Precinct.  About  noon  of  election  day  the  regular 
polling-place  was  fired  on  and  was  deserted,  but  the 
Republican  manager  opened  another  one  at  an  aban 
doned  school-house.  The  voting  at  this  new  poll 
proceeded  so  briskly  that,  when  evening  came,  1,317 
ballots,  all  for  the  Republican  candidates,  were  taken 
out  of  the  box.  As  this  was  about  four  times  the 
number  of  votes  cast  at  the  election  of  1874,  it  is  toler 
ably  clear  that  some  citizens  must  have  deposited  more 
than  their  share. 1  It  was  also  claimed  by  the  Demo 
crats  that  the  Republicans  did  much  repeating  in 
Charleston  county ;  but  the  figures  alone  do  not  bear 
out  the  claim,  for  the  total  vote  of  the  county  lacked 
more  than  1,000  of  equalling  the  census  figures.  How 
ever,  as  it  was  notorious  that  great  numbers  of  blacks 
were  induced  by  the  whites  to  absent  themselves  from 
the  polls,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  some  who  did  go 
cast  extra  ballots  for  those  who  remained  away. 2 

But  the  Democrats  certainly  bore  away  the  palm  in 
the  matter  of  illegal  voting.  Edgefield  county,  which 
in  1874  had  given  a  Republican  majority  of  498 

1  For  index  to  part  of  the  testimony  regarding  this  precinct  see 
p.  469  of  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31.  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.     The 
Democrats  claimed  that  the  Republicans  themselves  fired  on  the 
polling  places.  The  Republicans  tried  to  explain  the  size  of  the 
vote  by  pointing  out  that  in  a  neighboring  precinct  no  election  was 
held  and  that  the  voters  from  that  precinct  voted  in  the   Rob- 
bins  Precinct.     The  board  of  canvassers  threw  out  all  the  votes. 
Not  all  the  cheating  in  this  county  was  done  by  Republicans,  for 
the  white  vote  exceeded  the  census  figures  by  416,   whereas  the 
colored  vote  was  less  by  971. 

2  Atlantic,  XXXIX,  p.   187. 


148  The  Hayes-Til  den 

out  of  a  vote  of  6,298,  was  this  time  made  to 
return  a  Democratic  majority  of  3,134  out  of  a 
total  of  9,3/4,  which  was  2,252  more  votes  than 
the  total  number  of  adult  males  in  the  preceding  year.1 
In  Laurens  county  likewise  there  was  much  crooked 
work  done.  In  that  county  the  Democratic  majority 
was  1,112,  as  against  a  Republican  majority  of  1,077 
in  1874.  2  In  these  two  counties  ballot-box  stuffing, 
intimidation,  repeating,  and  similar  practices  were 
everywhere  rampant. 

The  ballots  were  counted  much  more  fairly 
than  they  were  cast.  With  a  liberality  which  did  him 
honor,  Governor  Chamberlain  had  appointed  a  Dem 
ocrat  as  a  member  of  the  board  of  managers  in  each 
election  precinct  and  had  composed  the  board  of  county 
canvassers  in  like  manner.  3 

The  election  was  scarcely  over  before  it  was  apparent 
that  the  result  would  be  very  close.  At  once  there 
began  a  contest  similar  to  those  in  Florida  and  Louis 
iana.  Like  those  states  South  Carolina  had  a  board  of 
state  canvassers.  This  board  was  composed  of  the 
secretary  of  state,  the  comptroller-general,  the  attorney- 
general,  auditor,  treasurer,  adjutant  and  inspector-gen- 


1  For  testimony  regarding  Edgefield  see  p.  xii  of  index  to  S. 
Mis.    Doc.    No.    48,    44th    Cong.    2d    Sess.     The    Democrats    had 
claimed  that  the  census  figures  were  too  large. — Atlantic,  XXXIX, 
p.  187. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  xii-xiii. 

3  Allen,  p.   428.     In  compiling  the  vote  the  county  canvassers 
made  some  changes  in  the  precinct  returns.     The  names  of  some 
of  the  candidates  had  not  been  correctly  printed  on  some  of  the 
tickets,  and  in  several  cases  candidates  running  for  one  office  had 
by  mistake  received  votes  for  other  offices.     Some  of  the  boards 
credited  the  candidates  with  votes  clearly  intended  for  them. — 
Atlantic,  XXXIX,  p.   188. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  149 

eral,  and  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  privileges 
and  elections  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 1    All 
these  gentlemen  were  Republicans,  three  were  colored 
men,  and  three  were  candidates  for  re-election.     Under 
the  act  creating  it,  the  board  had  the  power  to  receive 
and  canvass  the  returns  for  all  officers  except  governor 
and   lieutenant-governor,   the    returns    for   these   two 
being  canvassed  in  joint  session  of  the  general  assem 
bly.     In  performing  their   work  the  board  had  the 
further  power,  and  it  was  "made  their  duty,  to  decide 
all  cases  under  protest  or  contest"  that  might  arise.2 
At  previous  canvasses  this  section  of  the  statute  had 
been   interpreted   as   giving    the  board   discretionary 
powers.  3     At  this  canvass,  however,  the  Democrats  re 
solved  to  make  an  effort  to  confine  the  board  to  merely 
ministerial  duties.     In  this  work  they  found  an  instru 
ment  ready  at  hand  in  the  state  supreme  court.    That 
body  was   composed  of   Chief  Justice   F.  J.   Moses, 
father  of  the  notorious  ex-governor  whose  judicial  am 
bitions  had  been  thwarted  by  Chamberlain;  of  Asso 
ciate  Justice  Willard ;  and  of  Associate  Justice  Wright, 
who  was  a  colored  man.  4    All  three  had  been  chosen 
by  the  Republicans,  but  the  first  two  had  opposed 
Chamberlain  and  they  now  displayed  a  willingness  to 
lend  themselves  to  actions  almost  if  not  quite  as  par- 


1  The  last  mentioned  and  the  auditor  did  not  act. — P.  67  of 
Appendix  to  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  3,  44th  Cong.,  2d 
Sess. 

2  Act  approved  March   1,   1870. 

3  Allen,  p.  429. 

4  Ibid. 

11 


150  The  Hayes-Tilden 

tisan  as  many  of  those  already  described  in  Louis 
iana.  1 

On  the  1 4th  of  November,  four  days  after  the  board 
began  its  proceedings,  the  Democrats  applied  to  the 
court  for  a  writ  of  prohibition  to  restrain  the  board 
from  exercising  judicial  functions,  and  for  a  writ  of 
mandamus  to  compel  it  to  perform  the  merely  minis 
terial  functions  of  ascertaining  from  the  returns  which 
candidates  had  the  highest  number  of  votes  and  of 
then  certifying  the  statements  thereof  to  the  secretary 
of  state.  On  the  i/th  the  court  complied  as  far  as 
to  issue  an  order,  auxiliary  to  its  final  judgment, 
directing  the  board  forthwith  to  proceed  to  canvass 
the  returns,  and  then  make  a  report  of  the  result  to 
the  court.  2 

Very  much  against  their  will  the  board  on  November 
2  ist  brought  in  such  a  report,  but  at  the  same  time 
submitted  a  vigorous  protest  against  the  claim  that  the 
board  was  by  law  compelled  to  render  account  of  its 
actions  to  the  court.  The  board  stated  that  many 
allegations  and  evidences  of  fraud  and  other  irregulari 
ties  had  been  filed  regarding  the  election  in  Edgefield, 
Barnwell,  Laurens,  and  other  counties.  They  further 
reported  that,  taking  the  face  of  the  returns  but  omit 
ting  Robbins  Precinct,  the  result  would  be  the  election 
of  two  Democratic  congressmen,  two  Democratic  state 


1  Maxwell  in  the  South  Atlantic,  pp.  328-330,  pays  a  tribute 
to  the  court's   "judicial   integrity." 

2  For  the  documents  in  the  case  see  Appendix  to  H.  R.  Mis. 
Doc.  No.  31,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  78-91.     Justice  Wright  dis 
sented  from  that  part  of  the  order  which  required  the  board  to 
certify  its  action  to  the  court. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  151 

officers, 1  enough  Democratic  members  of  the  general 
assembly  to  give  that  party  a  majority  of  one  on 
joint  ballot,  three  Republican  state  officers,  four  Re 
publican  congressmen,  and  all  the  Republican  electors 
by  majorities  averaging  about  816. 2 

The  Democrats  now  found  themselves  in  an  extreme 
ly  puzzling  dilemma.  The  face  of  the  returns  gave 
them  control  of  the  legislature,  and  consequently 
the  governorship  and  lieutenant-governorship,  into 
their  hands ;  but,  notwithstanding  the  frauds  in  Edge- 
field,  Barnwell,  and  Laurens,  the  vote  for  the  electors 
was  favorable  to  Hayes.  If  the  returns  were  allowed 
to  stand,  then  most  of  the  state  ticket  would  be  saved, 
but  Tilden  would  be  lost;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
court  should  decide  to  allow  the  board  discretionary 
power,  then  the  state  officers,  about  which  the  Demo 
crats  were  by  far  the  most  anxious,  would  probably 
be  lost  without  there  being  much  chance  that  a  ma 
jority  would  be  evolved  for  Tilden. 

After  consulting  among  themselves  and  probably 
with  New  York  the  Democratic  managers  asked  the 
court  to  grant  two  orders,  one  for  each  horn  of  the 
dilemma.  The  first  order  was  to  force  the  board  to 
"certify  to  be  correct  the  statement  of  the  whole  num 
ber  of  votes  for  members  of  the  general  assembly 
....  and  determine  and  declare  what  persons  have 
been  by  the  greatest  number  of  votes  elected  to 

1  But   not    if   certain    votes   cast    for   John   B.    Tolbert   were 
counted   for  John   R.    Tolbert,   and   certain   votes   cast   for   F.   C. 
Dunn   were   counted   for   T.    C.    Dunn. 

2  For  this  report  see  appendix  to  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  44th 
Cong.   2d  Sess.,   pp.   91-114. 


152  The  Hayes-Tilden 

/ 

such  offices  ....  make  certificate  of  this  determin 
ation,  and  deliver  it  to  the  secretary  of  state 
....  and  do  the  same  in  reference  to  members  of 
Congress."  By  this  means  the  Democrats  would 
secure  beyond  the  chance  of  loss  two  members  of 
Congress,  two  minor  state  officers,  and  a  majority  of 
the  members  of  the  legislature  and  the  consequent 
declaration  by  that  body  in  favor  of  the  claims  of 
the  Democratic  candidates  for  governor  and  lieu 
tenant-governor.  The  request  for  the  other  order 
recited  that  there  were  discrepancies  between  the 
returns  of  the  precinct  managers  and  the  returns  of 
the  boards  of  county  canvassers  and  asked  that  the 
state  board  be  compelled  to  correct  such  discrepancies, 
and  after  doing  so  make  a  report  to  the  court,  and  also 
deliver  to  it  "all  official  papers  on  which  the  same  is  in 
any  manner  based,  including  the  returns  of  the  several 
managers  and  the  statements  of  the  county  canvass 
ers."  *  This  petition  looked  to  the  saving,  if  possible, 
of  one  or  all  of  the  electors. 

The  court  entertained  both  petitions,  but  delayed 
action  upon  them.  This  delay  probably  had  a  hidden 
motive. "  The  statute  defining  the  powers  and  duties 
of  the  board  limited  that  body's  sittings  to  ten  days ; 
if,  therefore,  the  board  did  not  fulfill  its  duties  within 
that  time,  it  would  no  longer  have  any  legal  authority 
in  the  matter;  the  court,  being  in  possession  of  the 


1  Appendix  to  H.  R.  R.  No.  31,  Part  3,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp. 
133-135.  This  request  was  first  made  on  the  20th  and  was 
again  brought  forward. 

2  So  charged  by  Allen,  p.  434.  See  also  New  York  Times  of 
Nov.  24th  et  seq. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  153 

records  of  election,  could  then  have  assumed  the  re 
sponsibility  of  declaring  the  result.  It  goes  without 
saying  that  that  declaration  would  have  been  for  Til- 
den,  i 

The  plan  was  a  shrewd  one,  but  the  first  step,  upon 
which  all  the  rest  depended,  was  delayed  a  little  too 
long.  The  ten  day  limit  expired  shortly  after  noon  of 
the  22d.  At  ii  o'clock  of  that  day  the  court  met,  and 
issued  a  writ  of  peremptory  mandamus  granting  the 
first  petition;  then,  after  a  short  recess,  ordered  that 
a  "rule  do  issue"  requiring  the  board  of  canvassers  to 
show  cause  why  another  writ  of  mandamus  should  not 
issue  requiring  them  to  comply  with  the  second  peti 
tion.  2 

But  before  the  second  order  was  issued  and  before 
the  writ  granted  had  been  served,  the  board  of  state 
canvassers  had  ceased  to  exist.  That  body  met  at  10 
A.  M.  ;  "corrected  certain  errors"  in  the  returns ;  threw 
out  the  counties  of  Edgefield  and  Laurens  (which  cer 
tainly  ought  to  have  been  thrown  out)  ;  certified  the 
election  of  the  Hayes  electors,  of  all  the  Republican 
candidates  for  state  offices  except  the  candidates  for 
governor  and  lieutenant-governor,  and  of  other  can 
didates,  both  Republicans  and  Democrats,  for  whom 
they  found  majorities.  The  board  then  adjourned 
sine  die. 3 


1  See  Times  of  Nov.  23d  and  24th. 

2  Appendix  to  report  just  cited,   pp.    114-118;   Times  of  Nov. 
23d;    Herald  of  Nov.   23d. 

3  See  appendix  just  cited,  pp.   118-122.     For  the  protests  and 
evidence  before  the  board  see  Ibid,  pp.   37-67.     For  the  minutes 
of  the  board  see  Ibid,  pp.  67-78.     The  board  did  not  return  any 
one  as  elected  to  the  legislature  from  Edgefield  and  Laurens. 


154  The  Hayes-Tllden 

The  rage  of  the  Democrats  when  they  discovered 
that  they  had  been  outwitted  was  very  great  indeed. l 
Hampton  declared  the  action  of  the  board  "a  high 
handed  outrage ;"  2  public  excitement  ran  so  high  that 
an  armed  conflict  seemed  not  improbable ;  the  court 
endeavored  to  avenge  itself  by  fining  each  member 
of  the  board  $1,500  for  contempt  and  by  committing 
all  of  them  to  the  Richland  county  jail  until  further 
orders.  3  From  thence  they  were,  however,  almost  im 
mediately  released  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  issued  by 
Judge  Bond  of  the  United  States  circuit  court.  4 

The  Democrats  now  resorted  to  a  number  of  other 
expedients  to  secure  one  or  more  electors  for  Tilden. 
A  proceeding  in  the  nature  of  a  quo  warranto  was  insti 
tuted  in  the  supreme  court  by  the  Democratic  claim 
ants  against  the  Republican  electors,  but  the  case  was 
ultimately  dismissed.  5  An  attempt  was  made  to  bribe 
one  of  the  electors;  but,  like  a  previous  attempt  to 
bribe  the  canvassing  board,  it  failed.  A  scheme  was 
also  formed  to  prevent  the  electors  from  voting  by  a 
process  which  involved  bribery,  violence,  and  the  lock- 


1  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  p.    64. 

2  Annual   Cyclopaedia,   1876,   p.    725.     Hampton   behaved  with 
great   prudence,    however,    throughout    this    exciting   period,    and 
discouraged  all    resorts   to  violence.     He   and   the   other   leaders 
saw,  of  course,  that  violence  would  bring  them  into  conflict  with 
the  United  States. 

3  Appendix   to  H.   R.   Mis.   Doc.  No.   31,   44th  Cong.   2d   Sess., 
pp.    127-133. 

4  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  p.   64 ;   Herald  of 
Nov.  28th. 

5  Appendix  cited  above,  pp.  190-220  ;  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  1, 
44th  Cong.   2d  Sess.,   p.   9. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  155 

ing  up  of  the  electors  in  separate  cells  until  after  the 
legal  day  for  casting  their  ballots ;  but  it,  too,  failed.  * 

On  the  6th  of  December,  therefore,  the  Republican 
electors  met  unhindered,  and  cast  their  ballots  for 
Hayes  and  Wheeler.  Returns  of  their  vote,  duly  cer 
tified,  were  then  forwarded  both  by  mail  and  by  mes 
senger  to  Washington. 

On  the  same  day  the  Democratic  claimants  also  met 
and  voted;  but  it  is  rather  difficult  to  see  on  what 
ground  they  based  their  right  to  do  so,  for  the  Demo 
crats  admitted  among  themselves  that  the  national 
contest  had  gone  against  them.  As  early  as  the  I4th 
of  November  Mr.  Smith  Mead  Weed,  who  had  come 
to  the  state  in  the  interests  of  Tilden,  had  telegraphed 
in  cipher  to  New  York:  ''Best  I  can  figure,  Tilden 
will  be  2,600  behind  Hampton,  and  see  little  hope ; 
shall  keep  up  appearances."  2  At  a  later  date,  when 
the  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  came 
to  the  state,  the  Democratic  members  were  unable  to 
make  any  coherent  case  for  their  candidate.  In  their 
report  they  felt  constrained  to  admit  that,  after  "ascer 
taining  the  votes  cast  at  all  the  precincts  and  correcting 
the  mistakes  made  by  the  managers  in  the  returns,"  the 
lowest  Hayes  elector  had  received  over  the  highest 
Tilden  elector  "a  majority  of  831."  3  To  be  sure,  the 
Democratic  members  added  that  "no  opinion  is  ad 
vanced  upon  the  truth  and  accuracy  of  these  returns ;" 

1  H.  R.  R.  No.  31,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  456.     For  a 
full  account  of  these  matters  see  post  Chap.  XIII. 

2  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  Part  4,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  p.  133. 

3  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  1,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  3.  This  was 
exclusive  of  Robbins  Precinct. 


156       The  Disputed  Election  of  1876 

pointed  to  the  use  of  the  army  and  to  the  intimidation 
of  Democratic  negroes ;  and  made  certain  other  objec 
tions;  but  the  case  they  presented  was  a  perfunctory 
one. 

There  is,  in  fact,  not  the  slightest  doubt  regarding 
the  electoral  result  in  South  Carolina. 1  On  the  face 
of  the  returns  the  Republicans  had  a  substantial  ma 
jority.  2  By  excluding  Edgefield  and  Laurens,  which 
certainly  ought  to  have  been  excluded,  the  majority 
would  have  been  increased  by  more  than  4,000.  And, 
finally,  if  the  election  had  been  free  and  fair,  the  ma 
jority  would  have  been  increased  by  many  thousands 
more. 

Nevertheless,  the  Democratic  leaders  and  newspa 
pers  throughout  the  country  continued  to  claim  the 
state;  and  it  therefore  became  a  bone  of  contention 
in  the  forthcoming  struggle  at  Washington. 


1  As    Governor    Chamberlain    has    remarked :     "The    historian- 
here  is  no  longer  compelled  to  spell  out  his  verdict  from  a  wide 
induction  of  facts ;  he  need  only  accept  the  assertions,  even  the 
vaunts,  of  many  of  the  leading  figures  in  the  canvass  since  the 
canvass  was  closed." — Atlantic,  LXXXVII,   p.   180. 

2  Reynolds  admits  that  "the  Republicans  got  in  their  electoral 
ticket."— p.   391. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   INELIGIBLE  ELECTOR   IN   OREGON 

In  Oregon,  the  remaining  state  from  which  a 
double  set  of  returns  was  forwarded  to  Washington, 
the  election  produced  a  situation  different  from  those 
described  in  Florida,  Louisiana,  and  South  Carolina. 
In  Oregon  there  was  no  dispute  about  the  result  of  the 
election;  for  it  was  freely  admitted  by  all  that  the 
three  Republican  candidates  for  electors  had  received 
majorities,  the  smallest  of  which  was  1,049  votes.1 
But  shortly  after  the  result  was  known  a  fact  which 
had  attracted  practically  no  attention  during  the  cam 
paign  began  to  assume  vast  importance  not  only  to 
the  people  of  Oregon  but  also  to  those  of  the  whole 
country.  The  fact  in  question  was  that  John  W. 
Watts,  one  of  the  Republican  electors,  was  a  post 
master.  To  be  sure,  his  office  was  one  of  the  fourth 
class  in  the  little  village  of  La  Fayette  in  Yam  Hill 
county,  and  the  compensation  he  received  was  only 
about  $268  per  year ; 2  nevertheless,  the  position  was 
unquestionably  one  of  "trust"  and  "profit,"  and  by 


1  S.    R.   No.    678,   44th   Cong.    2d   Sess.,   pp.    1-2.     This   will   be 
cited   as   "Report   of   the   Committee." 

2  Ibid,  pp.    2-3.     The   reference   is   to   the   committee's   report, 
but  the  report  accords  with  the  evidence. 


I5&  The  Hayes-Tilden 

holding  it  he  was  thereby  disqualified  by  section  i, 
article  2,  of  the  Federal  Constitution  from  being  ap 
pointed  an  elector. 

The  Democrats  were  somewhat  slow  in  recogniz 
ing  the  possibilities  of  the  situation  which  thus  pre 
sented  itself;  but  after  telegrams  from  the  East  had 
announced  that  a  contest  had  arisen  over  the  eligibility 
of  a  postmaster-elector  in  Vermont  the  state  leaders 
at  last  awoke  to  the  fact  that  perhaps  here  was  an 
opportunity  to  secure  the  one  more  vote  which  Tilden 
must  have  to  secure  his  election.  They  at  once  began 
to  bestir  themselves  to  see  what  could  be  done. l 

In  one  respect  the  situation  was  favorable;  in  an 
other  not  so  much  so.  The  governor,  L.  F.  Grover, 
was  a  Democrat,  and  was  partisan  enough  to  lend 
himself  to  almost  any  plan  which  gave  hope  of  suc 
cess.  The  state  law  was  not  so  promising.  It  no 
where  said  anything  about  the  power  of  the  governor 
to  appoint  an  elector  or  the  right  of  a  minority  candi 
date  to  take  the  place  of  a  successful  but  ineligible  op 
ponent  ;  on  the  contrary,  section  2  expressly  provided 
that  "if  there  shall  be  any  vacancy  in  the  office  of  an 
elector,  occasioned  by  death,  refusal  to  act,  neglect  to 
attend,  or  otherwise,  the  electors  present  shall  immedi 
ately  proceed  to  fill,  by  viva  voce  and  plurality  of  votes, 
such  vacancy  in  the  electoral  college."  The  governor's 
power  in  the  premises,  in  accordance  with  the  state 
law,  was  confined  to  being  present  when  the  secretary 
of  state,  who  was  the  returning  officer,  should  can- 

1  Report  of  the  Committee,  p.  3  ;  files  of  Portland  Daily  Ore- 
ffonian. 


Disputed  Election  of  iSjb  159 

vass  the  votes,  and  to  granting  certificates  of  elec 
tion  to  the  persons  "having  the  highest  number  of 
votes.'' 

These  certificates  were  to  be  prepared  by  the  secre 
tary,  "signed  by  the  governor  and  secretary,  and  by  the 
latter  delivered  to  the  college  of  electors  at  the  hour 
of  their  meeting."1 

Notwithstanding  the  plain  intent  of  the  law,  the 
Democratic  leaders  in  the  state  resolved  to  claim  that 
the  ineligibility  of  Watts  served  to  give  the  electorship 
for  which  he  had  been  a  contestant,  to  E.  A.  Cronin, 
who  had  received  the  highest  number  of  votes  among 
the  minority  candidates.  This  resolve  was  by  no  means 
the  unaided  conception  of  the  Democrats  of  Oregon,  but 
in  part  at  least  was  due  to  a  deluge  of  telegrams  from 
W.  T.  Pelton,  Tilden's  nephew  and  acting  secretary  of 
the  Democratic  national  committee,  from  Abram  S. 
Hewitt,  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  from  other 
prominent  Eastern  Democrats.  The  purport  of  many 
of  these  telegrams  can  be  gathered  from  the  following : 

"NEW  YORK,   Nov.   15,  — 6. 
"Governor  L,.  F.  Grover: 

"Upon  careful  investigation,  the  legal  opinion  is  that 
votes  cast  for  a  Federal  office-holder  are  void,  and 
that  the  person  receiving  the  next  highest  number  of 
votes  should  receive  the  certificate  of  appointment. 
The  canvassing-officers  should  act  upon  this,  and  the 
governor's  certificate  of  appointment  be  given  to  the 

1  S.  Misc.  Doc.  No.  44,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  p.  31.  This  will 
be  cited  as  "Testimony." 


160  The  Hayes-Tilde* 

elector  accordingly,  and  the  subsequent  certificate  of 
the  votes  of  the  electors  be  duly  made  specifying  how 
they  voted.  This  will  force  Congress  to  go  behind 
the  certificate,  and  open  the  way  to  get  into  merits  of 
all  cases,  which  is  not  only  just,  but  which  will  relieve 
the  embarrassment  of  the  situation. 

"ABRAM  S.  HEWITT."  * 

The  Eastern  leaders  by  no  means  confined  them 
selves  to  long  distance  messages  of  advice.  They 
deemed  the  matter  of  such  importance  that  they  se 
cured  one  J.  N.  H.  Patrick  of  Omaha,  Nebraska,  to 
make  the  long  trip  to  Oregon  and  see  to  it  that  no 
bungling  was  done  by  the  supposedly  inexperienced 
Democrats  of  the  western  coast.  Mr.  Patrick  hastened 
westward,  taking  with  him  a  copy  of  The  Household 
English  Dictionary,  2  which  was  to  be  used  in  certain 
activities  in  which  he  expected  to  engage.  Arrived  in 
Oregon,  Mr.  Patrick  displayed  much  zeal  if  not  discre 
tion  in  forwarding  the  purpose  for  which  he  had  been 
sent  out.  After  consultation  with  leading  Democrats, 
he  proceeded,  as  one  of  his  first  acts,  to  retain  in  con 
sideration  of  the  sum  of  $3,000  the  services  of  the 
Republican  law  firm  of  Hill,  Durham,  and  Thompson ; 
not,  it  appears,  primarily  for  the  sake  of  their  legal 
assistance  —  there  were  enough  Democratic  lawyers 
to  render  all  necessary  aid  in  that  connection  —  but 
because  one  of  the  firm  was  the  editor  of  the  two  most 


1  Committee's  Report,  p.  29.     For  other  dispatches  see  pp.  18- 

2  Testimony,  pp.  441-455,  and  Report  of  Committee,  p.  19. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  161 

influential  newspapers  in  the  state. l     Some  time  later 
Mr.  Patrick  dispatched  the  following  telegram : 

"To  W.  T.  Pel-ton,  No.  15,  Gramercy  Park,  New  York: 

"By  vizier  association  innocuous  to  negligence  cun 
ning  minutely  previously  readmit  doltish  to  purchase 
afar  act  with  cunning  afar  sacristy  unweighed  afar 
pointer  tigress  cuttle  superannuated  syllabus  dilatori- 
ness  misapprehension  contraband  Kountze  bisculous 
top  usher  spiniferous  answer. 

"J.  N.  H.  PATRICK."  2 

When  this  dispatch  was  received,  Mr.  Pelton,  or  his 
secretary,  took  each  word  of  the  telegram  in  turn  and 
found  its  position  in  another  copy  of  The  Household 
English  Dictionary,  and  then  sought  out  the  word  in 
the  corresponding  position  in  the  eighth  column 
ahead.  3  The  result  obtained  by  this  process  was  as 
follows : 

"Certificate  will  be  issued  to  one  Democrat.  Must 
purchase  a  Republican  elector  to  recognize  and  act 
with  Democrat  and  secure  the  vote  and  prevent  trouble. 
Deposit  $10,000  to  my  credit  with  Kountze  Brothers, 
Wall  street.  Answer." 


1  Report    of    Committee,    pp.    9-10;    telegram    to    Pelton    in 
Testimony,   p.    449 ;    testimony   of   Bellinger,    pp.    300    et    seq.,  of 
Kelly,  p.  332,  and  of  others.     The  newspapers  continued  hostile, 
however. 

2  Testimony,   p.   448. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   439-468,   236,   247,   250,   351,   494.     Patrick  had  at 
one   time  used  practically   the   same  cipher  in  business   dealings 
with  Alfred  B.   Hinman  of  Detroit.     Hinman  had  explained  the 
cipher  to  his  agent  and  later  partner  Alfred  W.  Shaw.     When  the 
Senate  committee  had  possession  of  the  dispatches,  some  of  them 
in    their    original    form    were    given    to    the    newspapers.     Shaw 
saw  one  of  them  in  a  Detroit  paper,  and  explained  the  key  to 
the  editor  of   the  Detroit  Daily  Post.        v 


1 62  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

Money  to  the  amount  of  more  than  $15,000  in  all 
was  furnished  Mr.  Patrick, l  but  his  scheme  to  pur 
chase  a  Republican  elector  was  not  consummated. 2 
How  the  other  part  of  the  plan  was  carried  out  will 
presently  appear. 

On  the  4th  of  December  the  secretary  of  state  can 
vassed  the  returns  in  the  presence  of  the  governor  and 
found  that  the  Republican  candidates  —  Cartwright, 
Odell,  and  Watts  —  had  received  "the  highest  number 
of  votes."  But  the  governor  then  stated  that  a  pro 
test  had  been  filed  against  the  issuance  of  a  certificate 
to  Watts,  and  announced  that  on  the  following  day  he 
would  hear  arguments  anent  the  matter.  At  the  ap 
pointed  time  he  took  a  seat  on  the  bench  in  the  room 
of  the  state  supreme  court.  The  three  Republican 
electors  then  presented  a  protest  denying  his  jurisdic 
tion  in  the  case,  and  insisting  that,  in  the  absence  of 
judicial  proceedings,  his  only  power  in  the  premises 
was  to  issue  certificates  to  the  persons  receiving  the 
highest  number  of  votes  as  declared  by  the  secretary 
of  state.  They  took  no  further  part  in  the  hearing, 
but  the  Democratic  counsel  presented  arguments  which 
lasted  far  into  the  night.  3 

1  Testimony  of  Asahel  Bush  of  the  firm  with  whom  the  money 
was  deposited. — Ibid,  p.   284. 

2  On   the  following:  day  Mr.   Pelton  sent  a  dispatch  stating 

If  you  make  obligation  contingent  on  result  in  March,  it 
can  be  done,  and  [incremable]  slightly  if  necessary."  He  tes 
tified  before  the  committee  that  this  did  not  refer  to  the  pur 
chase  of  an  elector ;  but  in  view  of  later  revelations,  it  may  well 
be  doubted  whether  he  told  the  truth.— See  Ibid,  502  et  seq. 

3  The  protests  and  a  summary  of  the  proceedings  are  given  in 
the  Report  of  the  Committee,   pp.   7-9  ;   see  also  Testimony,   pp. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  163 

Although  his  mind  was  already  made  up, 1  Governor 
Grover  withheld  his  decision  until  the  following  day, 
which  was  the  time  appointed  for  the  electors  to  cast 
their  ballots.  Shortly  after  noon  of  that  day  he  deliv 
ered  to  the  secretary  of  state  certificates  containing 
the  names  of  Odell  and  Cartwright,  the  two  Republi 
can  candidates  whose  eligibility  was  not  questioned, 
and  of  Cronin,  the  Democratic  claimant  for  Watts's 
electorship.  The  governor  pretended  to  act  on  the 
theory  that  since  Watts  was  ineligible  the  votes  cast 
for  him  were  void  and  hence  the  majority  of  legal 
votes  were  cast  for  his  opponent.  In  order  to  escape 
the  law  providing  for  the  rilling  of  vacancies  by  the 
other  electors,  he  argued  that  because  Watts  was  in 
eligible  he  was  never  an  ''incumbent"  and  hence  there 
could  be  no  vacancy.  This  interpretation. was  plainly 
at  variance  with  the  state  law  defining  vacancies,  but 
as  the  election  of  a  President  was  at  stake  the  gov 
ernor  did  not  hesitate  at  a  matter  of  such  small  impor 
tance  as  the  law. 2  . 

Then  ensued  a  scene  which  would  have  been  farcical 
had  it  not  been  fraught  with  possibilities  of  grave  dan 
ger  to  the  peace  of  a  great  nation.  The  secretary  of 


1  See  telegrams  from  Oregon  to  Pelton,  Testimony,  pp.   449, 
464. 

2  The  state  law  provided  that  the  governor  should  issue  his 
certificate  to  the  persons  "having  the  highest  number  of  votes," 
but  as  the  state  law  by  mistake  said  "two  lists"  while  the  Fed 
eral  law  said   "three,"   he  evaded  the   state  law  by  claiming  to 
act   under  the   Federal   law,   which  was   more   general.     See   his 
testimony  in  Ibid,  pp.  103,  120,  202,  235,  and  especially  his  writ 
ten  defence,   published  in  pamphlet  form,  and  incorporated   into 
his  testimony,  pp.   413-425.     For  the  view  of  the  committee  see 
their   Report,   pp.    38-74.     The   law   of  the   case   will   be   consid 
ered  in  greater  detail  in  Chapter  XL 


164  The  Hayes-Tilden 

state  signed  the  certificates  given  him  by  the  governor, 
and  took  them  to  the  room  set  apart  for  the  electors. 
There  he  found  Odell,  Cartwright,  and  Watts  (who 
had  now  resigned  his  postmastership),  and  also  Cronin 
and  the  other  two  defeated  Democratic  candidates.  To 
Cronin  he  handed  the  envelope  containing  the  three 
certificates,  and  then  retired.  When  Odell  and  Cart- 
wright  asked  for  their  certificates,  Cronin  refused  to 
deliver  them,  but  condescended  to  read  part,  or  all, 
of  one  of  the  certificates  aloud.  Odell  and  Cartwright 
nevertheless  proceeded  to  organize  the  college;  Cart 
wright  was  elected  president,  and  he  then  chose  Odell 
as  secretary.  Cronin  now  again  refused  to  hand  over 
the  certificates,  and  also  refused  to  obey  a  resolution 
to  that  effect  passed  by  Cartwright  and  Odell.  At 
this  point  Watts,  who  hitherto  had  taken  no  part,  pre 
sented  his  resignation,  stating  that  the  objections  made 
to  his  eligibility  were  his  reason  for  doing  so.  His 
resignation  was  accepted,  whereupon  Cronin  ex 
claimed  : 

"I  understand  that  by  receiving  Dr.  Watts's  resigna 
tion  you  refuse  to  act  with  me,  and  I  shall  proceed 
to  fill  these  vacancies.  I  declare  there  are  two  vacan 
cies,  and  I  shall  proceed  to  fill  them." 1 

He  then  instructed  Mr.  Klippel,  one  of  the  defeated 
Democratic  candidates,  who  now  took  charge  of  the 
door,  to  "call  in  Mr.  J.  N.  T.  Miller."  Miller  was 
waiting  outside  the  door  in  readiness  for  such  an 
emergency,  and  at  once  came  in.  Cronin  thereupon 

1  Testimony,   p.   48. 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  165 

appointed  him  to  fill  one  of  the  "vacancies,"  after 
which  the  two  chose  a  Mr.  Parker  to  fill  the  other. 
After  Parker  had  been  called  in  the  three  proceeded 
to  cast  their  ballots  for  President  and  Vice-President. 
Considering  that  all  three  were  Democrats,  they 
showed  great  forbearance  in  this  matter,  for  they  cast 
two  votes  for  Hayes  and  Wheeler  and  only  one  for 
Tilden  and  Hendricks.  , 

In  the  meantime  Odell  and  Cartwright  were  not 
idle.  They  chose  Watts  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by 
his  own  resignation,  or  disqualification,  and  then  cast 
three  ballots  for  Rutherford  B.  Hayes  for  President 
and  three  ballots  for  William  A.  Wheeler  for  Vice- 
President.  ! 

Returns  from  both  "colleges"  were  later  forwarded, 
both  by  mail  and  by  special  messenger,  to  the  presi 
dent  of  the  Senate.  The  Democratic  returns,  which 
were  certified  by  Governor  Grover,  were  conveyed  to 
Washington  by  Cronin,  who,  however,  first  forced  the 
Democratic  managers  to  pay  him  $3,000  for  doing  so.  2 
The  Republican  returns,  which  were  not  certified  by 
the  governor  but  which  were  accompanied  by  certifi 
cates  of  the  results  of  the  canvass  furnished  by  the 
secretary  of  state,  3  were  carried  by  Mr.  Odell. 

1  My  account  of  this  whole  transaction  is  based  chiefly  upon 
the  testimony  of  the  secretary  of  state,  Ibid,  pp.   19  and  66,  of 
Odell,  pp.  32,  37,  67,  392;  of  Cartwright,  pp.  46,   181;  of  Watts, 
59,    145,    203,    368,    391;    of   Cronin,   p.    78;    of   Klippel,    pp.    162, 
249  ;  of  Miller,  p.  175  ;  of  Laswell,  pp.  252,  265,  and  of  some  other 
witnesses.     Upon  most  of  the  essential  facts  the  witnesses  were 
in  substantial  accord. 

2  Testimony  of  Cronin  himself.  —  Ibid,  pp.    88   et  seq. 

3  Three  certificates  were  obtained  from  the  secretary  by  a  Mr. 
Dolph  and  were  carried  by  him  to  the  Republicans  in  the  elec 
toral   room.  —  Ibid,  pp.   25,   52. 

12 


1 66  The  Hayes-Tilden 

The  Republicans,  both  of  the  state  and  the  nation, 
denounced  the  Democratic  procedure  as  an  "outrage" 
and  an  attempted  "steal ;"  in  Oregon  itself  the  indigna 
tion  ran  so  high  that  Governor  Grover  was  burned  in 
effigy.  The  Democrats,  on  the  other  hand,  usually 
characterized  the  matter  as  a  "good  joke,"  or  a  "shrewd 
trick."  *  Not  many  of  their  leaders  expected  the  Cro- 
nin  return  to  stand,  but  they  did  believe  it  would 
secure  a  revision  of  other  electoral  returns  by  forc 
ing  the  Republicans  to  set  a  precedent  of  going  be 
hind  the  certificate  of  the  governor.  They  were  now 
confident  that  whatever  course  the  Republicans  should 
take,  Tilden  was  sure  of  the  necessary  number  of 
electoral  votes. 

But  their  rejoicing  was  premature.  As  was  almost 
immediately  pointed  out,  they  failed  to  discern  a  rad 
ical  distinction  between  the  Oregon  question  and  the 
questions  raised  in  the  Southern  states.  In  the  latter 
the  issue  arose  regarding  the  manner  in  which  the 
board  of  state  canvassers  discharged  their  duties.  To 
go  behind  their  returns  would  require  a  recount  of 
the  popular  vote  in  those  states,  a  revision  of  the  appli 
cation  of  state  registry  laws,  and  a  decision  as  to  the 
facts  and  effects  of  intimidation  and  fraud.  Such 
action  would  lead  to  a  substitution  of  national  for  state 
authority,  in  violation  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
which  says  that  each  state  shall  appoint  its  electors 
"in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  thereof  mav  direct." 


1  Daily   Oregonian,   Dec.    8th ;   New  York   Times,   Dec.    7th   to 
10th. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  167 

The  Oregon  question,  on  the  contrary,  was  one  which 
would  not  lead  to  any  such  investigation.  The  dispute 
there  began  at  a  point  subsequent  to  where  the  South 
ern  questions  ended.  It  would  not  lead  to  any  inquiry 
or  judgment  as  to  how  or  why  the  people  voted  or 
neglected  to  vote.  It  would  not  touch  the  action  of 
any  state  canvasser  in  canvassing  the  votes.  It  would 
simply  relate  to  the  unauthorized  interference  of  the 
governor  of  Oregon  and  his  man  Cronin  with  the 
action  of  the  college  of  electors  at  a  time  when  they 
were  assembled  to  discharge  their  duty  under  the 
United  States  law  and  Constitution,  as  the  law  of 
Oregon  expressly  declared  they  should  do,  and  could 
hardly,  if  at  all,  go  beyond  facts  appearing  upon  the 
face  of  the  returns  made  by  the  duly  elected  electors. 1 
In  this  clear  and  undeniable  distinction  between  the 
domains  of  state  powers  and  Federal  powers  lay  mo 
mentous  possibilities.  Out  of  the  failure,  either 
through  mental  obtuseness  or  willful  obstinacy,  on  the 
part  of  many  persons  to  perceive  this  nice  distinction 
there  later  originated  much  unjustifiable  criticism  of 
the  constitutional  stand  taken  by  eight  men  who  were 
to  decide  one  of  the  most  momentous  controversies 
which  judges  have  ever  been  called  upon  to  decide. 

1  See  an  article  by  Dorman  B.  Eaton  in  the  New  York 
Times  for  Dec.  14th.  In  the  light  of  subsequent  events  this 
article  was  prophetic. 


CHAPTER  X 

COMPROMISE:  OR  CIVIL  WAR? 

Few  of  the  generation  which  has  grown  up  since 
then  will  ever  have  any  but  the  faintest  conception  of 
the  gravity  of  the  situation  existing  during  the  winter 
of  1876-77.  In  the  end  the  question  at  issue  was  set 
tled  peaceably  without  leaving  many  traces  that  could 
easily  be  remarked  by  future  observers.  But  at  the 
time  probably  more  people  dreaded  an  armed  conflict 
than  had  anticipated  a  like  outcome  to  the  secession 
movement  of  1860-61. 1 

In  fact,  it  was  difficult  to  see  how  the  dispute  could 
be  settled  in  any  other  manner.  Both  parties  seemed 
equally  determined;  both  professed  to  be  thoroughly 
confident  of  the  justice  of  their  cause.  There  was  in 
tense  bitterness  of  feeling  on  both  sides,  but  especially 
on  the  part  of  the  Democrats.  They  had  thought 
themselves  about  to  enter  the  Promised  Land,  when, 
lo,  a  possibility  had  arisen  that  they  might  be  excluded 
from  it.  They  at  once  began  to  cry  out  that  a  con 
spiracy  was  on  foot  to  cheat  Tilden  out  of  the  Presi 
dency  ;  hot-heads  were  loud  in  asserting  their  deter- 


1  Senator  Hoar,  Autobiography,  I,  p.  369,  says  that  in  hlfc 
opinion  there  would  have  been  a  resort  to  arms  had  it  not  been 
"for  the  bitter  experience  of  a  few  years  before." 


The  Disputed  Election  of  1876        169 

mination  to  resist  to  the  uttermost  the  consummation 
of  the  "plot."  Threats  of  force  were  freely  indulged 
in.  The  phrase,  "Tilden  or  blood,"  was  heard  in  some 
quarters. l  "Tilden  has  been  elected,"  said  the  Evans- 
ville,  Indiana,  Courier;  "and  by  the  Eternal  he  shall  be 
inaugurated."  The  New  York  World  declared  that  in 
case  Republican  returning  boards  should  count  in 
Hayes,  "many  times 

"Forty  thousand  American  men 
Will  know  the  reason  why." 2 

The  New  York  Express,  which  was  said  to  be  the 
property  of  John  Kelly  and  other  prominent  Demo 
crats,  talked  about  "tea  duties"  and  "the  use  of  the 
sword"  and  indulged  in  a  torrent  of  incendiary  insin 
uations  and  assertions. 3  Similar  expressions  ap 
peared  in  hundreds  of  other  Democratic  newspapers 
in  all  parts  of  the  country.  A 

But  happily  some  of  the  persons  who  had  $ti;pported 
Tilden  were  less  violent.  Speaking  for  this  class, 
the  New  York  Herald  gave  the  radical  element  in  the 
party  some  excellent  advice.  "Let  us,"  it  said  on 

November    loth,    "be    as    calm    as    we    can 

There    must    be    no    violence This    is    not 

Mexico.  ....  As  the  Democratic  party  is  that 
which  ifeels  itself  likely  to  be  aggrieved  in  this  mat 
ter,  we  beg  them  to  remember  that  the  danger  which 

1  Quoted  in  the  New  York  Times,  Dec.   19th. 

2  Nov.    16th. 

3  Cited  in  the  Herald  of  Nov.   16th. 


i jo  The  Hayes-TilJen 

now  stares  the  country  in  the  face  is  but  one  of  the 
results  of  the  rebellion  which  they  encouraged,  and  in 
which  the  largest  part  of  them  engaged  in  1861.  That 
rebellion  was  causeless  and  unreasonable  to  the  last 
degree ;  to  their  folly  and  wickedness  in  beginning  and 
encouraging  it  are  due  the  multitude  of  evils  which 
have  rested  upon  the  country  since,  and  of  which  this 
present  emergency  is  another.  The  country  has  not 
forgotten  their  agency  in  these  matters.  It  is  not  un 
willing  once  more  to  trust  them  with  political  power; 
the  present  vote  shows  this.  But  it  will  not  tolerate 
for  an  instant  anything  which  looks  to  a  disorderly 
or  violent  attempt  to  grasp  power,  or  even  anything 
which  could  be  construed  into  a  threat  to  do  so.  The 
American  people  will  make  extremely  short  work  of 
any  party,  be  it  the  Democratic  or  the  Republican, 
which  attempts  or  threatens  civil  disorder  hereafter  on 
any  plea  or  pretext  whatever."  Other  Democratic 
journals  gave  similar  counsel.  The  New  York  Sun, 
for  example,  said  on  November  2ist  that  it  would  be 
better  to  "submit  to  wrong  for  the  time,  however 
gross,  than  to  appeal  to  any  but  legal,  constitutional, 
and  peaceful  remedies." 

The  Republicans,  while  equally  determined,  were  in 
general  much  more  conservative  in  their  utterances 
than  were  the  Democrats. 1  They  made  no  threats 
of  "Hayes  or  war."  They  merely  asserted  that  in 
case  he  should  be  found  to  have  a  majority  of  the 
electoral  vote,  he  would  be  inaugurated.  They  sneered 

1  New  York  Times.  Dec.  4th. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  171 

at  the  Democratic  "vaporings,"  and  in  reply  remarked 
significantly  that  General  U.  S.  Grant,  not  Buchanan, 
was  in  charge  of  affairs  at  Washington. 1 
¥  The  contest  absorbed  the  attention  of  the  country 
to  the  practical  exclusion  of  every  other  subject.  Each 
day  the  newspapers  were  filled  with  conjectures,  ru 
mors,  and  long  editorials.  Few  attempts  were  made 
to  present  the  truth  on  both  sides  of  the  question. 
The  Democratic  press  represented  that  during  the  cam 
paign  peace  and  good-will  towards  all  had  reigned  in 
the  South,  with  the  exception  that  many  good  Demo 
cratic  negroes  had  been  wickedly  intimidated  by  col 
ored  Republicans  and  United  States  troops. 2  The 
returning  boards  they  characterized  as  the  special  de 
vice  of  the  devil.  The  Republican  press,  on  the  other 
hand,  spoke  of  Wells,  Anderson,  and  the  rest  as  gen 
tlemen  of  the  highest  character,  only  a  "little  lower 
than  the  angels,"  and  gave  harrowing  accounts  of 
political  murders  and  proscriptions  committed  without 
doubt  at  the  direct  instigation  of  Tilden  and  other 
leaders.  For  having  sent  troops  to  preserve  the  peace 
in  the  disputed  states,  the  President  was  lauded  by  Re 
publicans,  and  was  threatened  with  impeachment  by 
Democrats.3  There  was  much  talk  about  ineligible 
electors  in  .Vermont,  New  Jersey,  Missouri,  Oregon 

1  Harper's    Weekly,   XX,    p.    965. 

2  They  misrepresented   in  the  most  absurd  way  the  Pinkston 
story. — New  York   World  of  Nov.   29th,  30th,  and  Dec.   1st. 

3  The  New  York  Herald,  however,  approved  the  sending  of  the 
troops. — See  issue  of  Nov.  12th.     The  impeachment  talk  was  most 
pronounced  after  the  troops  had  been  used  to  support  the  Cham 
berlain   legislature. — See  New  York   World  of  uec.    1st   and   2d ; 
The  Nation,  XXIII,   pp.    337-338. 


172  The  Hayes-Tilden 

and  elsewhere.  There  was  the  widest  possible  differ 
ence  of  opinion  regarding  who  possessed  the  power 
to  count  and  declare  the  electoral  vote.  Republicans 
asserted  that  this  power  belonged  to  the  Republican 
president  of  the  Senate;  Democrats  were  equally  con 
fident  that  the  right  resided  in  the  ultimate  analysis  in 
the  Democratic  House.  The  newspapers  were  filled 
with  long  and  learned  discussions  of  the  points  of 
law  involved  in  the  various  questions  at  issue;  cases 
were  cited  in  the  most  elaborate  and  conclusive 
manner.  The  Democrats  made  much  of  the  fact  that 
they  had  received  a  majority  of  "200,000"  of  the  pop 
ular  vote;1  the  Republicans  retorted  that  Presidents 
are  not  elected  by  popular  vote,  that  there  had  been 
several  minority  Presidents,  and  that,  anyhow,  with  a 
free  election  in  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Georgia,  and 
elsewhere  in  the  South,  the  majority  would  have  been 
reversed.  2  All  sorts  of  stories  were  afloat.  Because 
the  President  ordered  some  companies  of  troops  to 
Washington,  it  was  alleged  he  intended  to  seat  Hayes 
by  force,  or  else  to  declare  himself  dictator.  3  Hayes 
was  reported  to  be  arranging  a  trade  with  the  South 
ern  Democrats.4  It  was  said  that  the  Democrats 
were  attempting  to  bribe  returning  boards,  that  they 
were  attempting  to  bribe  electors,5  that  at  the  last 


1  See   almost   any    issue   of   the    World   or   Sun.     The    Herald 
deprecated  this  sort  of  talk  as   likely  to  stir  up  violence.     The 
popular  vote,   it  pointed  out.  was  altogether  "irrelevant." 

2  This   was   no   doubt   true.     For  a   convincing   demonstration 
see  New  York   Times  of  Dec.   10th 

3  Sun,  Dec.   18th. 

4  Times,  Dec.  3d,   4th,   5th. 

5  Ibid,  Dec.   7th. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  173 

moment  they  would  send  out  a  false  telegram  purport 
ing  to  be  from  Zach.  Chandler  informing  the  Repub 
lican  electors  that  Hayes  had  withdrawn,  and  instruc 
ting  them  to  vote  for  Elaine.1  When  The  Nation, 
which  was  extremely  anxious  for  a  peaceful  solution 
of  the  difficulty,  suggested  that  some  Republican  elec 
tor  give  a  casting  vote  for  Tilden,  the  story  immedi 
ately  started  that  James  Russell  Lowell,  who  was  one 
of  the  Massachusetts  electors,  intended  to  adopt  this 
advice ;  Mr.  Lowell  had  some  difficulty  in  convinc 
ing  anxious  Republicans  that  he  had  no  intention  of 
doing  so.  2 

On  Monday,  December  4th,  two  days  before  the 
electoral  colleges  voted,  Congress  assembled.  As  the 
solution  of  the  great  problem  lay  with  that  body,  its 
composition  was  a  matter  of  the  highest  importance. 
The  Senate  was  decidedly  Republican;  the  House  de 
cidedly  Democratic.  The  presiding  officer  of  the  Sen 
ate  was  Thomas  W.  Ferry  of  Michigan ;  the  speaker 
of  the  House,  now  chosen  to  succeed  Mr.  Kerr,  who 
had  died  during  the  recess,  was  Samuel  J.  Randall  of 
Pennsylvania. 

Neither  body  had  been  long  in  session  before  the 
all-absorbing  question  was  taken  up.  On  the  very  first 
day  the  House  passed  without  debate  a  resolution  pro 
viding  for  three  committees,  one  of  fifteen  members; 
one  of  six  members,  and  one  of  nine  members,  to 
proceed  to  Louisiana,  Florida,  and  South  Carolina  re- 


1  Times,  Dec.   5th. 

2  Ibid,   The  Nation,  XXIII,   pp.    322-323,    334-335. 


174  The  Hayes-Til  den 

spectively,  and  investigate  the  "recent  elections  therein 
and  the  action  of  the  returning  or  canvassing  boards 
in  the  said  states  in  reference  thereto." 1  Next  day 
the  Senate  likewise  passed  a  resolution  directing  the 
Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  to  examine 
into  the  elections  in  the  states  of  South  Carolina, 
•  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Louisiana,  and  Missis 
sippi,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  in  those  states 
the  right  of  citizens  to  vote  had  "been  denied  or  greatly 
abridged;"  and  also  directing  the  committee  to  "in 
quire  into  the  eligibility  to  office  under  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States"  of  any  electors  who  were 
alleged  to  have  been  ineligible,  and  as  to  whether 
the  appointment  of  any  electors  had  been  made  by 
force,  fraud,  or  other  illegal  means. 2  On  the  22d 
the  same  committee  was  given  instructions  to  investi 
gate  the  situation  in  Oregon. 3 

The  various  committees  soon  entered  upon  their 
labors.  With  the  exception  of  the  Senate  subcom 
mittees  on  Oregon,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi,  which 
summoned  witnesses  to  Washington,  all  the  commit 
tees  and  subcommittees  proceeded  to  the  states  in  dis 
pute.  4  There  they  examined  witnesses  of  all  kinds, 

1  Record,,  pp.   11-16. 

2  Ibid,  pp.    18-21,   33-40.     It   will   be  noticed   that  the  resolu 
tion  of  the   Senate  was   strictly  consistent  with   the   stand  later 
taken   by   the   Electoral   Commission. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   90   and  365-367. 

4  A  later  committee  on  the  privileges,  powers,  and  duties  of 
the  House  in  counting  the  electoral  votes  took  testimony  at 
Washington.  See  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  42,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess. 
Exclusive  of  the  debates  in  Congress  and  of  several  thousands 
of  pages  of  testimony  regarding  contested  seats  in  the  House,  the 
government  ultimately  published  more  than  20,000  pages  of 
Material  bearing  upon  the  election. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  175 

conditions,  and  colors,  and  after  several  weeks  of  work 
accumulated  about  13,000  pages  of  testimony,  which 
are  of  great  value  to  the  historian,  but  which  exer 
cised  little  or  no  influence  upon  the  outcome  of  the 
controversy.  Each  committee  and  subcommittee,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Senate  subcommittees  on  Oregon, 
Mississippi  and  Alabama,  brought  in  two  reports. 
The  majority  members  of  the  House  committees  re 
ported  that  the  electoral  votes  of  Louisiana,  Florida, 
and  South  Carolina  belonged  of  right  to  Tilden  and 
Hendricks;  the  minority  members,  from  the  same 
testimony,  reported  exactly  opposite  conclusions.  The 
same  state  of  affairs  obtained  with  the  Senate  com 
mittees,  except  that  with  them  the  majority  reports 
were  favorable  to  Hayes,  the  minority  reports  to  Til- 
den. 

Congress  by  no  means  allowed  the  matter  to  rest 
with  the  mere  appointment  of  investigating  commit 
tees.  The  election,  in  all  its  varying  aspects  of  in 
timidation,  murder,  returning  boards,  ineligible  elec 
tors,  and  governors'  certificates,  was  discussed  day 
after  day  with  great  warmth  in  both  houses,  without 
either  party  being  budged  one  iota  from  its  claim  that 
its  own  candidates  had  been  elected. 

Urged  on  by  the  New  York  World  and  other  news 
papers,  some  of  the  Democratic  leaders  attempted  to 
carry  through  a  plan  to  impeach  President  Grant  for 
his  alleged  unconstitutional  use  of  the  army  and  for 
other  offenses.  A  caucus  to  consider  the  advisability 
of  beginning  such  proceedings  and  also  to  determine 


i/6  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  general  line  of  party  procedure  met  on  the  6th  of 
December  and  again  on  the  7th. l  At  the  first  meet 
ing  Mr.  Fernando  Wood,  then  a  representative  in 
Congress  but  now  chiefly  remembered  as  the  mayor 
of  New  York  who  in  1861  proposed  that  the  metropolis 
should  secede  and  set  up  as  a  city  state,  moved  that 
impeachment  proceedings  should  at  once  be  instituted. 
Other  leaders  also  spoke  in  favor  of  such  action;  but 
the  majority  of  those  present  opposed  it,  and  argued 
that  it  would  serve  to  raise  a  distracting  issue,  and 
might  lead  to  violence.  The  opposition  on  the  part 
of  the  Southern  members  to  anything  which  might  lead 
to  a  civil  war  was  particularly  decided.  In  reply  to  a 
good  deal  of  incendiary  talk  which  certain  Northern 
members  indulged  in,  some  of  the  Southern  leaders 
were  refreshingly  sensible  and  frank.  They  declared 
that  the  South  had  had  its  fill  of  war.  If,  said  John 
Young  Brown  of  Kentucky,  there  should  be  a  war,  it 
would  be  the  work  of  the  Northern  Democrats ;  while 
Benjamin  Hill  of  Georgia  referred  cuttingly  to  a  sec 
tion  of  the  party  who  were  "invincible  in  peace  and 
invisible  in  war.'*  He  was  also  reported  to  have  said 
that  Mr.  Wood  and  others  of  those  counselling  armed 
resistance  had  "no  conception  of  the  conservative  influ 
ence  of  a  15-inch  shell  with  the  fuse  in  process  of 
combustion."  2 

As  time  passed  it  became  more  than  ever  apparent 


1  For  accounts  see  World,  Dec.  7th,  8th,  9th ;  The  Nation, 
XXIII,  pp.  337-338  ;  Harper's  Weekly,  XX,  p.  9  ;  Times,  Dec.  7th 
and  8th. 

2  Ibid,  Dec.  14th;  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d 
Sess.,  I,  p.  885. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  IJJ 

that  the  crux  of  the  whole  contest  lay  in  the  question 
of  the  power  to  count  and  declare  the  electoral  vote. 
Unfortunately  the  constitutional  provision  on  the  sub 
ject  was  so  indefinite  as  to  leave  room  for  decidedly 
different  interpretations.  The  Constitution  provides, 
it  will  be  remembered,  that  the  certificates  of  the  votes 
of  the  electoral  colleges  shall  be  transmitted  sealed  to 
the  seat  of  the  government,  "directed  to  the  president 
of  the  Senate,"  and  that  "the  president  of  the  Senate 
shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  open  all  the  certificates,  and  the  votes 
shall  then  be  counted/'  Upon  the  interpretation  of 
the  last  clause  seemed  to  hinge  the  question  of  who 
was  to  be  the  President  of  the  United  States.  If,  as 
some  of  the  Republicans  contended,  the  clause  meant 
"counted  by  the  president  of  the  Senate,"  1  then  there 
was  little  doubt  that  Mr.  Ferry,  who  was  a 
partisan,  would  decide  that  the  returns  sent  in  by  the 
Republican  claimants  constituted  the  true  vote  and 
would  declare  a  majority  of  one  for  Hayes.  If, 
as  the  Democrats  asserted,  the  counting  was  to  be  done 
under  the  direction  of  the  two  houses,  then  a  dead 
lock  seemed  likely  to  ensue.  Such  a  deadlock,  they 
contended,  would  throw  the  election  into  the  Demo 
cratic  House.  2 

Nor  did  the  precedents  seem  to   furnish  any  way 


'  1  Atlantic,  LXXII,  p.   522. 

2  One  Democratic  theory  was  that  upon  disputed  questions 
the  two  houses  should  vote  together.  This  would  have  meant 
that  the  Republican  majority  in  the  Senate  would  be  overcome 
by  the  Democratic  majority  in  the  House. — Atlantic,  LXXII,  p. 
523. 


178  The  Hayes-Tilden 

out  of  the  difficulties  of  the  situation. 1  They  did, 
however,  throw  light  on  some  of  the  disputed  points. 
Down  to  1865,  excluding  a  temporary  expedient  used 
in  1789,  2  the  process  of  counting  had  been  practically 
the  same.  Prior  to  the  day  appointed  the  two  houses 
had  always  passed  concurrent  resolutions  regulating 
the  procedure.  Before  meeting  in  the  joint  session, 
which  sometimes  was  held  in  the  Senate  chamber  but 
oftener  in  the  hall  of  the  House,  the  Senate  had  invar 
iably  chosen  one  teller,  and  the  House  two.  The 
duties  of  these  tellers  had  been  to  make  a  list  of  the 
votes  and  deliver  the  result  to  the  president  of  the 
Senate.  That  officer  had  on  every  occasion  opened 
the  certificates,  but  in  no  instance  had  he  attempted, 
basing  his  claim  on  the  ambiguous  clause,  "and  the 
votes  shall  then  be  counted,"  to  exercise  the  power  of 
counting  votes  or  rejecting  votes.  Clearly,  therefore, 
the  precedents  were  against  the  theory  that  the  pres 
ident  of  the  Senate  could  arrogate  to  himself  the  now 
much  coveted  power  of  counting. 

But  were  there  any  precedents  to  guide  Congress 
through  the  other  difficulties  which  would  inevitably 
arise  even  though  the  Republican  contention  on  this 
particular  point  should  be  abandoned?  The  answer 
is:  None  that  were  conclusive.  At  the  first  elec- 


1  For  all  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  Congress  relating 
to  counting  the  electoral  votes  down  to  IS 76  see  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc. 
No.  13,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess. 

2  John  Langdon  was  chosen  president  of  the  Senate  "for  the 
sole  purpose  of  receiving,  opening,  and  counting  the  votes."  This 
was  done  in  accordance  with  a  resolution  of  the  Convention  of 
1787,  later  ratified  by  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation. — Ibid, 
pp.  3-8. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  179 

tion  of  Monroe  objection  was  made  to  counting 
the  votes  of  Indiana  on  the  ground  that  Indiana 
was  not  a  state  of  the  Union  at  the  time  her  electors 
were  chosen.  But  as  senators  and  representatives 
from  the  state  had  been  admitted  to  Congress,  her 
votes  were  received  and  counted. 1  Four  years  later 
a  similar  question  arose  regarding  the  votes  of  Mis 
souri  ;  as  the  result  of  the  election  did  not  hinge  upon 
that  state,  the  issue  was  evaded  by  counting  the  votes 
in  the  alternative, — that  is,  231  for  Monroe  with  the 
votes  of  Missouri,  and  228  without  those  votes. 2 
In  1837  the  same  objection  was  made  to  the  vote  of 
Michigan,  and  again  the  issue  was  evaded  by  counting 
in  the  alternative.  3  Twenty  years  later,  at  the  time 
of  Buchanan's  election,  objection  was  made  to  the 
vote  of  Wisconsin  on  the  ground  that  the  electors  had 
voted  on  the  day  after  that  prescribed  by  law.  Her 
vote  was,  however,  declared  by  the  Vice-President  as 
it  was  reported  to  him  in  the  certificates ;  not  because 
he  claimed  the  right  to  pass  upon  the  validity  of  the 
election,  for  he  later  expressly  disclaimed  any  such 
authority,  but  merely  because  the  two  houses  failed 
to  decide  the  matter.  4 

The  count  of  1865  to°k  place  under  exceptional  cir 
cumstances.  A  week  previously  Congress  passed  a 
joint  resolution  excluding  the  eleven  seceded  states 

1  H.   R.   Mis.  Doc.  No.   13,   44th  Cong.   2d   Sess.,   pp.    46-47. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   49-56. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   70-76. 

4  Ibid,  pp.   86-144. 


i8o'  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

from  participation  in  the  choice  of  the  President,  a  and 
by  another  joint  resolution  prescribed  a  mode  of  pro 
cedure  to  be  used  in  counting  the  votes  from  the  other 
states. 2  This  second  resolution  was  the  famous 
Twenty-Second  Joint  Rule,  which  provided  that  in 
case  objection  should  be  made  to  the  vote  of  any  state, 
the  two  houses  should  separate,  and,  without  debate, 
decide  upon  the  question  of  receiving  such  vote,  and  no 
vote  was  to  be  counted  except  by  consent  of  both 
houses.  Of  the  states  excluded  by  the  law  none  ex 
cept  Louisiana  and  Tennessee  had  chosen  electors; 
the  Vice-President,  in  obedience  to  the  law,  refrained 
from  presenting  their  returns  to  the  convention ;  and, 
as  no  objection  had  been  made  to  any  other  return, 
no  resort  to  the  most  vital  part  of  the  rule  was  neces 
sary.  3 

Four  years  later,  at  the  first  election  of  Grant,  ob 
jection  was  made  to  the  vote  of  Louisiana  on  the 
ground  that  no  valid  election  had  been  held  in  that 
state,  but  the  two  houses  concurred  in  counting  her 
vote.  4  The  vote  of  Georgia  was  also  objected  to  be 
cause  the  electors  had  not  been  chosen  on  the  day  re 
quired  by  law,  because  at  the  date  of  the  election  the 
state  had  not  been  readmitted  to  representation  in 
Congress,  because  she  had  not  complied  with  the 
Reconstruction  Act,  and  because  the  election  had  not 


1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  13,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  149-223. 
President  Lincoln  signed  this  resolution,  although  he  expressed 
the  opinion  that  it  was  unnecessary  for  him  to  do  so. — Ibid,  pp. 
229-230. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  147-149,  223-225. 

3  Ibid,  pp.  225-230. 

4  Ibid,  pp.   238-244. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  181 

been  "a  free,  just,  equal,  and  fair  election."  The  two 
houses,  under  a  special  joint  rule  already  provided 
for  the  case,  counted  the  vote  in  the  alternative. 1 

Four  years  later  the  situation  in  the  states  of  Louis 
iana  and  Arkansas  was  such  that  Senator  Sherman 
moved  an  investigation  to  ascertain  whether  the  choice 
of  electors  in  those  states  had  been  conducted  "in  ar- 
cordance  with  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  what  contests,  if  any,  have  arisen  as  to  who 
were  elected  electors  in  either  of  said  states,  and 
what  measures  are  necessary  to  provide  for  the 
determination  of  such  contests,  and  to  guard 
against  and  determine  like  contests  in  the  future 
election  of  electors."1  In  the  discussion  which 
followed  a  number  of  opinions  were  advanced 
which  are  of  interest  in  connection  with  the  con 
troversy  of  1876.  Thurman  of  Ohio  said  he  would 
vote  for  the  resolution,  but  expressed  a  belief  that 
it  seemed  "to  imply  that  there  is  a  broader  jurisdic 
tion  in  Congress  over  the  election  than  I  have  been 
accustomed  to  suppose  is  vested  in  Congress."  He 
thought  that  the  only  power  over  electors  bestowed 
upon  Congress  was  the  power  to  "determine  the  time  of 
choosing  electors  and  the  day  on  which  they  shall  give 
their  votes,"  and  held  that  to  the  states  belonged  the 
right  to  determine  the  validity  of  the  claims  of  differ 
ent  persons  to  the  position  of  electors.  "We  may," 
he  however  admitted,  "be  compelled  possibly  from 


1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.   13,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  244-21 

2  Ibid,  p.  336. 

13 


1 82  The  Hayes-Tilden 

necessity  to  determine  which  of  the  two  sets  of  elec 
tors  has  the  official  evidence  that  entitles  their  certifi 
cates  to  be  received,  and  votes  given  by  them  to  be 
counted."1  Other  Democrats,  as  well  as  many  Re 
publicans,  expressed  similar  views  upon  the  power  of 
Congress  to  go  behind  the  returns.  Trumbull  of  Illi 
nois  said :  "I  think  where  there  are  two  bodies  claim 
ing  to  be  electors  of  a  State  we  must  necessarily  have 
the  right  to  inquire  which  is  the  electoral  college  of  the 
state;  but  I  question  whether  we  could  go  so  far  as 
to  go  behind  the  election."  2  Other  speakers,  includ 
ing  Senator  Conkling,  3  interpreted  the  powers  of  Con 
gress  somewhat  more  broadly. 

The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  a  month  later  the 
committee,  through  Senator  Morton,  reported  upon 
the  situation  in  Louisiana  but  not  upon  that  in  Arkan 
sas.  The  report  in  part  was  as  follows:  "The  com 
mittee  are  of  the  opinion  that  neither  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  nor  both  houses  jointly  have  the 
power  under  the  Constitution  to  canvass  the  returns 
of  an  election  and  count  the  votes  to  determine  who 
have  been  elected  Presidential  electors,  but  that  the 
mode  and  manner  of  choosing  electors  are  left  ex 
clusively  to  the  states.  And  if  by  the  law  of  the 
state  they  are  to  be  elected  by  the  people,  the  method 
of  counting  the  vote  and  ascertaining  the  result  can 
only  be  regulated  by  the  law  of  the  states.  Whether 
it  is  competent  for  the  two  houses,  under  the  Twenty- 


1  H    R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  13,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  336-337. 

2  Ibid,  p.    343. 

3  Ibid,  pp.  343-345. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  183 

Second  Joint  Rule  (in  regard  to  the  constitutionality 
of  which  the  committee  here  give  no  opinion),  to  go 
behind  the  certificate  of  the  governor  of  the  state  to 
inquire  whether  the  votes  have  ever  been  counted  by 
the  legal  returning  board  created  by  the  law  of  the 
state,  or  whether,  in  making  such  count,  the  board  • 
had  before  them  the  official  returns,  the  committee  offer 
on  suggestions."  l  ' 

In  the  end  the  votes  of  neither  Arkansas  nor  of 
Louisiana  were  counted.  Three  votes  from  Georgia 
were  also  thrown  out  because  they  had  been  cast  for 
Horace  Greeley  after  that  gentleman  was  dead.  Ob 
jections  were  made  to  the  votes  of  yet  other  states, 
but  none  of  these  objections  were  sustained  by  either 
House.  2 

Prior  to  1876  two  unsuccessful  attempts  to  regulate 
the  counting  of  the  electoral  votes  had  been  made. 
In  1800  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  providing 
for  a  Grand  Council,  composed  of  six  senators,  six 
representatives,  and  the  chief  justice,  or  in  his  ab 
sence  the  senior  associate  justice,  which  should  "have 
power  to  examine  and  finally  decide  all  disputes"  rela 
tive  to  the  count.  In  so  doing  the  tribunal  was  to 
have  power  to  take  testimony  upon  questions  of  the 
eligibility  of  .electors,  the  truth  of  their  returns,  and 
such  matters,  but  was  expressly  denied  the  power  to 
go  behind  the  action  of  canvassing  officers.  This  bill, 
which  in  some  of  its  main  features  was  not  unlike 


1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  13,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  358-363. 

2  Ibid,   357-408. 


184  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  act  creating  the  Electoral  Commission,  was  passed 
in  amended  form  by  the  Senate, l  but  was  defeated  in 
the  House.  2 

The  other  unsuccessful  attempt  to  regulate  the  count 
occurred  after  the  count  of  1873,  already  described. 
Although  the  general  public  had  taken  little  interest  in 
the  complications  of  that  count,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  whatever  the  decision  upon  the  disputed  points 
might  be  the  general  result  would  not  be  changed, 
some  of  the  members  of  Congress  had  been  awakened 
to  the  possibility  that  the  system  then  in  force  might 
in  case  of  a  close  election  lead  to  a  national  disaster. 
Foremost  among  these  persons  was  Senator  Morton  of 
Indiana,  who,  with  wonderful  prescience  of  the  dan 
gers  soon  to  arise,  began,  even  before  the  count  of 
1873  was  made,  to  urge  upon  Congress  the  advisa 
bility  of  changing  the  method  of  electing  the  President, 
or  at  least  of  regulating  more  effectually  the  process  of 
the  count.3  The  Twenty-Second  Joint  Rule  he  de 
nounced  as  "the  most  dangerous  contrivance  to  the 
peace  of  the  nation  that  has  even  been  invented  by 
Congress  —  a  torpedo  planted  in  the  straits  with  which 
the  state  may  at  some  time  come  into  fatal  collision."  4 
His  first  effort  was  directed  to  securing  a  constitu 
tional  amendment  providing  for  the  choice  of  all  but 
two  of  the  electors  apportioned  to  a  state  by  con- 

1  One  of  these  amendments  substituted  a  senator  chosen  by 
the  House  from  among  three  nominated  by  the   Senate  for  the 
chief  justice. 

2  H.   R.   Mis.   Doc.  No.    13,   44th  Cong.   2d   Sess.,  pp.   16-29. 

3  Ibill,  pp.  345-355. 

4  Ibid,  p.   417. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  185 

gressional  districts ;  the  two  others  to  be  chosen  by 
the  state  at  large. 1  When,  early  in  1875,  it  became 
apparent  that  this  plan  would  fail,  he  attempted  to 
carry  through  a  bill  to  govern  the  count.  The  bill 
provided  that  the  vote  of  no  state  from  which  there 
was  but  one  return  should  be  rejected  except  by  con 
current  vote  of  both  houses;  but  that  in  case  of  two 
or  more  returns  only  that  one  should  be  counted 
which  each  house,  acting  separately,  should  decide 
to  be  the  true  one.  In  the  end  the  bill  also  failed, 
partly  because  of  opposition  to  its  provisions,  but 
largely  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Democrats,  to 
their  later  regret,  were  unwilling  to  have  it  pass  until 
the  House  chosen  in  1874  should  be  installed. 2  When 
this  had  occurred,  the  matter  was  again  taken  up, 
but  nothing  was  accomplished.  3 

In  the  debates  upon  both  the  proposed  amendment 
and  the  bill  many  widely  different  opinions  upon  the 
subject  of  the  power  to  count  were  expressed,  and 
some  of  these  opinions  are  interesting  in  view  of  the 
stand  later  taken  by  the  statesmen  uttering  them.  Mor 
ton  himself  was  by  no  means  consistent  in  his  attitude 
on  the  matter  of  the  power  to  count.  He  held  at  first 
that  the  president  of  the  Senate  must  ex  necessitate  rei 
decide  between  returns.  4  Later  he  said  that  while 
the  constitutional  provision  might  be  construed  either 
as  giving  the  power  to  the  president  of  the  Senate 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  13,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  408-458. 

2  Senator  Thurman,  for  example,  favored  the  bill  but  wished 
to  postpone  its  passage. — Ibid,  p.   505. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   520-689. 

4  Ibid,  p.   416. 


1 86  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

or  as  giving  it  to  the  Congress,  he  adopted  the  latter 
construction  as  the  more  reasonable  and  as  more  in 
accord  with  the  spirit  of  our  government. 1 

Numerous  devices  which  have  a  somewhat  similar 
interest  were  proposed  for  settling  disputes  about  the 
count.  One,  which  was  brought  forward  by  Senator 
Edmunds  of  Vermont,  was  for  a  commission  of  four 
members  from  each  House.  2  Senator  Frelinghuysen 
introduced  an  amendment  providing  that  disputes 
should  be  referred  to  the  supreme  court.  3  Later  he 
suggested  a  commission  to  be  composed  of  the  presi 
dent  of  the  Senate,  the  speaker,  and  the  chief  jus 
tice.  4 

But,  as  already  stated,  Congress  utterly  failed  to 
put  any  authoritative  interpretation  upon  the  question 
of  the  power  of  counting.  Furthermore,  the  Senate 
in  January,  1876,  on  the  motion  of  Senator  Morton, 
refused  to  readopt  the  Twenty-Second  Joint  Rule. 5 
Thus  there  remained  nothing  to  regulate  the  count  in 
the  present  crisis  save  the  bare  constitutional  phrase 
and  the  precedents.  And  unfortunately  the  precedents 
were  not  such  as  to  settle  conclusively  any  of  the 
controversies  likely  to  arise. 

Circumstances  were  therefore  favorable  for  the  ad 
vocating  of  extreme  measures  by  hot-heads  in  both 


1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  13,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  565-566. 

2  Ibid,  p.    498. 

3  Ibid,  p.   345. 

4  Ibid,  p.   549. 

5  Ibid,  pp.  782-794.     The  claim  was  made  after  Congress  re 
assembled  in  December  that  the  rule  was  still  in  force,   but  as 
most    of   the   Democratic    senators    took   the    opposite   view,    the 
claim   came   to   nothing. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  187 

parties.  Extremists  on  the  Republican  side  continued 
to  assert  that  in  case  the  House  and  Senate  disagreed 
upon  the  question  of  what  were  the  true  returns  the 
president  of  the  Senate  would  count  the  votes  and  de 
clare  the  result.  The  Administration,  they  openly  an 
nounced,  would  see  to  it  that  the  man  thus  chosen 
was  inaugurated.  The  Democratic  extremists,  on  the 
other  hand,  continued  to  declare  that  to  the  House 
belonged  at  least  equal  power  in  the  count,  that  that 
body  possessed  the  right  to  decide  when  a  choice  had 
not  been  made,  and  that  when  such  a  decision  was 
made,  the  House  would  proceed  to  choose  the  Presi 
dent  as  the  Constitution  directed. 

The  newspapers  continued  to  publish  stories  about 
the  Impending  conflict.  In  furtherance  of  a  Republi 
can  plot  General  Hancock,  who  was  in  command  of 
the  Department  of  the  East,  was  to  be  sent  off  to  the 
Pacific  coast,  his  place  was  to  be  taken  by  the  ter 
rible  Phil.  Sheridan,  and  New  York  City  was  then  to  be 
"bulldozed"  by  troops  and  warships.1  The  blood 
thirsty  and  dictatorial  Grant  had  sworn  that  if  the 
Democrats  in  Congress  attempted  to  impeach  him,  he 
would  clap  them  all  into  Fortress  Monroe.  2  Senator 
Sherman  was  to  supplant  Ferry  as  president  of  the 
Senate,  and  with  his  brother  Tecumseh,  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  army,  was  to  set  up  a  sort  of  duumvi 
rate.  3  Republican  newspapers  discovered  circulars 


1  The   story   appears   to  have  first  been   published   in   the   Al 
bany  Argus  of  Dec.    llth.     There  was   truth  in  part  of  it. — See 
Reminiscences    of   Hancock   by   his   wife,    pp.    158-162. 

2  World,    Dec.    12th. 

3  Ibid,  Dec.    14th. 


1 88  The  Hayes-Til  den 

directing  Southern  rifle-clubs  to  assemble  in  Washing 
ton  and  assist  in  inaugurating  Tilden,  x  and  asserted 
that  the  treasonable  organization  known  as  the  Knights 
of  the  Golden  Circle,  or  Sons  of  Liberty,  was  being 
revived  for  the  same  purpose.  - 

Unquestionably  there  were  some  Democrats  who 
were  prepared  to  go  to  any  lengths  in  order  to  seat 
their  candidates.  Resolutions  to  the  effect  that  usurpa 
tion  must  be  resisted  were  passed  by  various  state  com 
mittees,  and  calls  were  issued  for  conventions  to  con 
sider  what  should  be  done. 3  Steps  were  taken  toward 
organizing  the  members  of  the  state  and  county  com 
mittees —  especially  those  members  who  were  ex-sol 
diers —  into  an  organization  to  be  used  in  case  force 
should  become  necessary,  and  in  some  places  Tilden 
and  Hendricks  "minute-men"  appear  to  have  been 
enrolled.  This  work  was  carried  on  in  large  measure 
through  the  Democratic  Veteran  Soldiers  Association, 
and  the  activity  appears  to  have  been  greatest  in  the 
Middle  West,  where  General  J.  M.  Corse  of  "Hold  the 
Fort"  Allatoona  fame  was  in  control.  4 

The  Republicans  were  not  at  all  dismayed  by  these 
preparations  on  the  part  of  their  opponents.  Since 

1  Times,  Dec.   10th. 

2  Ibid,  Dec.  16th  et  seq. 

3  Indianapolis   Journal   and   Sentinel,  Dec.    14th. 

4  New  York   Times,  Dec.   13th  et  seq,     Dec.   6th   Corse   tele 
graphed   to   Col.    Pelton:      "Glory   to   God.     Hold   on   to   the   one 
vote    in    Oregon.     I    have    100,000    men    to   back    it    up"     Three 
weeks  before  he  had  telegraphed  to  Perry  H.  Smith :      "We  have 
160,000  ex-soldiers  now  enrolled."     Evidently  the  general  had  a 
poor    head    for   figures,    or   else   some   of   his   men   had   deserted 
Corse    later    testified    before   a    Senate   committee   that    the    dis 
patches  were  intended  as  a  piece  of  "badinage,"  and  said  that  he 
"never  contemplated"  raising  troops,  but  some  of  his  testimony 
was  conflicting.      S.  R.  No.  678,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess  ,  pp    409-413 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  189 

the  electoral  colleges  had  met  and  voted  they  would 
admit  of  no  doubts  as  to  the  election  of  their  candidates. 
Hayes  himself  now  expressed  the  opinion  that  he  had 
been  honestly  elected,  and  said,  "I  fully  expect  to  be 
inaugurated/' 1 

The  Democrats  abated  not  one  jot  nor  tittle  of  their 
claim  of  victory,  and  on  December  I3th  National 
Chairman  Hewitt  issued  at  Washington  an  announce 
ment  of  the  election  of  Tilden  and  Hendricks.  This 
drew  from  Zach.  Chandler  a  rather  saucy  reply, 2  and 
from  the  New  York  Herald,  which  deplored  such  pro- 
nunciamentos  as  tending  to  stir  up  violence,  a  state 
ment  to  the  effect  that  ''there  is  a  gentleman  in  Utica, 
the  inmate  of  a  public  institution,  who  regards  him 
self  as  the  Emperor  of  China,  and  issues  edicts  by  the 
score,  but  we  have  never  heard  that  he  enjoys  the 
revenues  of  the  Celestial  kingdom."  8 

But  fortunately  the  American  people  possessed  too 
much  hard  sense  to  allow  themselves  to  be  carried 
away  by  the  counsels  of  extremists  on  either  side.  The 
recent  bloody  conflict  served  as  an  excellent  object 
lesson  of  what  might  be  expected  in  case  the  hot-heads 
should  be  allowed  to  have  their  way.  Good  men  and 
true  in  both  parties  set  themselves  to  work  to  evolve 
a  compromise.  Warlike  speeches  were  frowned  upon 
or  laughed  down.  Petitions  began  to  flow  into  Con 
gress  imploring  that  body  to  find  means  for  adjusting 
the  contest.  4 


1  World,   Dec.    12th. 

2  Ibid,  Dec.   14th;  Herald,  Dec.   14th. 

3  Dec.    14th. 

4  See,  for  example,  Record,  p.  72. 


190  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Happily  the  men  in  Congress  whose  patriotism  rose 
higher  than  their  partisanship  proved  equal  to  the 
occasion.  Despite  the  wrangling  in  both  houses,  pro 
posals  looking  to  a  peaceful  settlement  had  already 
been  made.  One  of  these,  introduced  by  Senator  Ed 
munds,  provided  for  a  constitutional  amendment  plac 
ing  the  count  in  the  hands  of  the  supreme  court. 
The  proposal  was  debated  on  a  number  of  occasions, 
but  ultimately  failed  to  pass  even  the  Senate. 1  Far 
more  important  in  its  results  was  a  resolution  intro 
duced  into  the  House  on  the  7th  of  December  by 
George  W.  McCrary,  a  Republican  member  from 
Iowa,  who  was  later  a  member  of  Hayes's  cabinet  and 
then  a  Federal  judge.  The  resolution  was  as  follows : 

"Whereas,  There  are  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the 
proper  mode  of  counting  the  electoral  votes  for  Presi 
dent  and  Vice-President,  and  as  to  the  manner  of 
determining  questions  that  may  arise  as  to  the  legality 
and  validity  of  returns  made  of  such  votes  by  the 
several  states : 

"And  whereas,  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that 
all  differences  of  opinion  and  all  doubts  and  uncer 
tainty  upon  these  questions  should  be  removed,  to 
the  end  that  the  votes  may  be  counte'd  and  the  result 
declared  by  a  tribunal  whose  authority  none  can  ques 
tion  and  whose  decision  all  will  accept  as  final :  there 
fore, 

"Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  members  of  this 
House  be  appointed  by  the  Speaker,  to  act  in  con 
junction  with  any  similar  committee  that  may  be  ap 
pointed  by  the  Senate,  to  prepare  and  report  without 

1  Record,   pp.    117-128,    140-144,    157-163. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  191 

delay  such  a  measure,  either  legislative  or  constitu 
tional,  as  may  in  their  judgment  be  best  calculated  to 
accomplish  the  desired  end,  and  that  said  committee 
have  leave  to  report  at  any  time." 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  House  judiciary 
committee,  of  which  J.  Proctor  Knott,  afterward  gov 
ernor  of  Kentucky,  was  chairman.  *  The  fate  of  the 
resolution  depended  upon  the  attitude  taken  by  the 
Democratic  leaders  toward  compromise.  If  Mr.  Til- 
den  had  had  his  way,  doubtless  it  would  never  have 
been  reported,  for  he  was  strongly  averse  to  any  sur 
render  ;  but  the  leaders  at  Washington,  many  of  whom 
were  jealous  of  him,  were  not  much  inclined  to  heed 
his  wishes.  2  His  influence  was  further  weakened  by 
the  fact  that  neither  at  this  time  nor  later  was  it  ever 
definitely  known  exactly  who  represented  him.  Mr. 
David  Dudley  Field,  a  well-known  lawyer,  had  ac 
cepted  an  election  to  Congress  at  a  special  election  for 
the  purpose  of  looking  after  Mr.  Tilden's  legal  inter 
ests  ;  but  neither  Field  nor  Colonel  Pelton,  nor  Hewitt, 
nor  Randall,  were  ever  thoroughly  trusted  by  Tilden. 
Furthermore,  shortly  before  the  resolution  was  intro 
duced  in  the  House  President  Grant,  who  was  anxious 
for  compromise,  summoned  Mr.  Hewitt,  who  as  na 
tional  chairman,  was  naturally  regarded  as  the  Demo 
cratic  leader  at  Washington,  to  an  interview,  as  a  result 
of  which  Mr.  Hewitt  became  anxious  to  play  the  role 
of  a  Henry  Clay.  Consequently  no  considerable  hostility 
toward  the  resolution  developed.  The  judiciary  com- 

1  Record,  pp.  91-92. 

2  Bigelow,  II,  p.  63  ;  personal  statement  by  eame  author. 


192  The  Hayes-Til  den 

mittee  did,  however,  amend  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  pro 
vide  for  a  committee  of  seven  instead  of  five,  and  for 
another  committee  of  seven  to  report  upon  the  powers, 
privileges,  and  duties  of  the  House  in  counting  the 
electoral  vote.  Thus  changed,  it  was  on  the  I4th  of 
December  reported  to  the  House  by  Mr.  Knott,  and 
was  at  once  passed  without  debate  under  the  previous 
question. 1 

On  the  following  day  the  resolution  was  taken  up 
in  the  Senate.  Senator  Edmunds  thereupon  offered 
the  following: 

"Resolved,  that  the  message  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  on  the  subject  of  the  Presidential  election 
be  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  seven  Senators 
with  power  to  prepare  and  report  without  unnecessary 
delay  such  a  measure,  either  of  a  legislative  or  other 
character,  as  may  in  their  judgment  be  best  calculated 
to  accomplish  the  lawful  counting  of  the  electoral 
votes,  and  best  disposition  of  all  questions  connected 
therewith,  and  the  due  declaration  of  the  result;  and 
that  said  committee  have  power  to  confer  and  act  with 
the  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  named 
in  such  message  and  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise."  : 

Three  days  later  the  resolution  was  passed  without 
debate  and  without  opposition.3  On  the  21  st  the 
president  of  the  Senate  announced  the  committee  as 
follows:  Mr.  Edmunds  of  Vermont  (chairman),  Mr. 
Morton  of  Indiana*  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  of  New  Jersey, 
Mr.  Logan  of  Illinois,  —  Republicans ;  and  Mr.  Thur- 


1  Record,  pp.   197-199. 

2  Ibid,  p.   221. 

3  Ibid,  p.    258. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  193 

man  of  Ohio,  Mr.  Bayard  of  Delaware,  and  Mr.  Ran 
som  of  North  Carolina,  —  Democrats.  As  General 
Logan  was  in  the  midst  of  a  contest  for  re-election,  he 
found  it  expedient  to  look  after  his  political  "fences" 
in  Illinois,  and  asked  to  be  excused. l  The  vacancy 
thus  made  was  filled  by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  of  New  York. 

On  the  22d  Speaker  Randall  announced  the  House 
committee  as  follows:  Henry  B.  Payne  of  Ohio 
(chairman),  Eppa  Hunton  of  Virginia,  Abram  S. 
Hewitt  of  New  York,  William  M.  Springer  of  Illi 
nois,  Democrats ;  and  George  W.  McCrary  of  Iowa, 
George  F.  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  and  George  Willard 
of  Michigan,  Republicans. 

Although  nothing  of  much  importance 2  was  done 
by  the  committees  until  after  the  holidays,  the  effect  of 
their  appointment  upon  the  public  mind  was  quieting. 
People  "began  to  get  out  of  the  Mexican  and  into  the 
Anglo-Saxon  frame  of  mind."  In  a  much  applauded 
speech  delivered  in  New  York  at  the  New  England 
Society's  dinner  on  Forefathers'  Day  George  William 
Curtis  unquestionably  expressed  what  were  coming 
to  be  the  sentiments  of  the  thoughtful,  prudent,  and 
patriotic  men  of  all  parties  when  he  said :  "The  voice 
of  New  England,  I  believe,  going  to  the  Capitol,  would 
be  this,  that  neither  is  the  Republican  Senate  to  in 
sist  on  its  exclusive  partisan  way,  nor  is  the  Demo- 


1  Century,  XL,  p.  924. 

2  A  subcommittee  of  the  House  committee  compiled  the  pro 
ceedings  and  debates  of  Congress  relating  to  the  electoral  votes  in 
the  past.     The   result  of  their  labors  constitutes  the  volume  al 
ready  referred  to  as  Debates  on  Electoral  Count. 


194  The  Hayes-Tilden 

cratic  House  to  insist  on  its  exclusive  partisan  way; 
but  the  Senate  and  House,  representing  the  American 
people  and  the  American  people  only,  in  the  light  of 
the  Constitution  and  by  the  authority  of  law,  are  to 
provide  a  way  over  which  a  President,  be  he  Repub 
lican  or  be  he  Democrat,  shall  pass  unchallenged  to  the 
chair."  i 

But  despite  the  growth  of  a  spirit  of  compromise, 
there  were  many  evidences  that  the  situation  was  still 
fraught  with  dangers.  The  enrolling  of  Democratic 
minute-men  went  forward  until  military  organization 
to  a  certain  degree  had  been  effected  in  eleven  states,  2 
and  a  commander-in-chief,  namely  General  Corse,  3  had 
been  tentatively  agreed  upon.  Republican  leaders  still 
defiantly  asserted  that  the  president  of  the  Senate 
would  count  the  vote,  and  Mr.  Ferry  let  it  be  known 
that  he  "would  shirk  no  responsibility."  4  The  inaug 
ural  address  of  Governor  Robinson  of  New  York  con 
tained  a  long  argument,  written  by  Tilden  himself, 
setting  forth  the  opposing  Democratic  view  of  the 
right  of  the  House  to  elect  in  case  of  a  deadlock.  5  In 
the  South,  although  the  chief  leaders  were  generally 
for  peace,  expressions  like,  "We'll  try  them  this  time 
with  Tilden  and  New  York  to  help  us,"  were  fre 
quently  heard ; 6  while  some  of  the  more  excitable  of 

1  The  Nation,  XXIII,   p.   375. 

2  McClure's  Magazine,  XXIII,  p.  77.     Statement  of  Hewitt. 

3  So  says  Henry  Watterson.  John  Goode  of  Virginia  says  that 
Gen.  Franklin    of    Connecticut    was    mentioned    for    the    place. 
Hancock  was   no   doubt   considered. 

4  World,  Dec.   26th;    The  Nation,  XXIII,   p.   375. 

5  Bigelow,  Tilden,  II,  pp.   66-74  ;   Times,  Jan.  3d  and  4th. 

6  Atlantic,  XXXIX,  p.   190. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  195 

the  local  leaders  wrote  all  sorts  of  wild  promises  of 
assistance  to  their  compatriots  in  the  North.  *•  On  the 
8th  of  January  conventions  of  Democrats  were  held 
at  Washington,  Richmond,  and  at  the  capitals  of  sev 
eral  of  the  states  of  the  Middle  West.  2  At  the  Wash 
ington  meeting  a  fiery  Louisville  editor,  whose  opin 
ions  are  always  interesting  but  whose  advice  if  fol 
lowed  would  have  wrecked  this  Republic  a  score  of 
times,  declared  that  100,000  Kentuckians  would  see 
that  justice  was  done  Tilden.  3  At  Indianapolis  the 
orator  of  the  day,  Mr.  George  W.  Julian,  once  can 
didate  on  the  Liberty  Party's  ticket  for  Vice-Presi 
dent,  "warned"  the  Republicans  "that  millions  of  men 
will  be  found  ready  to  offer  their  lives  as  hostages  to 
the  sacredness  of  the  ballot  as  the  palladium  of  our 
liberty.  Whosoever/'  he  concluded,  "hath  the  gift  of 
tongues,  let  him  use  it;  whosoever  can  wield  the  pen 
of  the  ready  writer,  let  him  dip  it  into  the  inkhorn; 
whosoever  hath  a  sword,  let  him  gird  it  on,  for  the 
crisis  demands  our  highest  exertions,  physical  and 
moral." 4  Similar  speeches  were  made  at  the  other 
meetings,  and  more  or  less  warlike  resolutions  were 
passed;  but,  in  general,  the  meetings  proved  much 
less  impressive  than  their  promoters  had  hoped.  Far 
more  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  country  than  mass 
meetings  or  the  utterances  of  fiery  editors  was  the 
situation  in  two  of  the  disputed  states  of  the  South. 


1  The  Nation,  XXIV,   p.    38. 

2  World,   Times   and  Herald  of  Jan.    9th   and   10th. 

3  Times  and  World  of  Jan.   9th. 

4  Indianapolis  Journal  and  Sentinel  of  Jan.   9th. 


196  The  Hayes-Tllden 

From  the  last  of  November  there  had  been  a  dual  leg 
islature  and  from  the  loth  of  December  a  dual  execu 
tive  in  South  Carolina,  and  a  similar  condition  of 
affairs  obtained  in  Louisiana. *  While  peace  was  to 
a  certain  extent  maintained  between  the  rival  factions 
by  Federal  troops,  no  man  could  feel  sure  that  some 
violent  incident  might  not  occur  which  would  prove  a 
spark  sufficient  to  fire  the  whole  magazine. 

After  the  holidays  the  two  congressional  commit 
tees,  working  first  separately,  later  together,  and  all 
the  time  in  secret,  began  trying  to  evolve  some  plan 
for  a  peaceful  settlement. 2  At  first  there  was  much 
uncertainty  and  floundering  about.  In  the  House 
committee,  for  instance,  the  first  session  was  devoted 
to  considering  such  questions  as:  What  are  the 
powers  of  the  president  of  the  Senate  in  counting 
the  vote?  Could  the  counting  of  the  vote  be  referred 
to  an  independent  tribunal?  Should  a  new  election 
be  held?  What  would  be  the  situation  on  the  4th  of 
March  if  no  person  has  been  declared  elected  by  Con 
gress  or  has  been  chosen  by  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives?3 

The  divergence  of  opinion  between  the  two  factions 

1  For  a  more  extended  account  of  these  matters  see  Chap. 
XII. 

2  The    Senate    committee    met    in    the    room    of    the    Senate 
judiciary  committee ;    the   House  committee   in   the   room  of   the 
House    committee    on    banking    and    currency    or    in    the    chair 
man's  private  apartments  in  the  Riggs  House.     The  joint  meet 
ings  were  held  in  the  room  of  the  Senate  judiciary  committee. 

3  My  account  of  the  work  of  the  committees  is  based  chiefly 
on   an   article   by   Milton   H.    Northrup,    secretary   of   the   House 
committee,    published    in    the    Century,    XL,    pp.    923-934.     The 
article  is  in  large  part  made  up  of  notes  taken  by  Mr.  Northrup 
at    the    time.     In    addition,    I    have    received    information    froru 
ex-Senator   Edmunds  on  a  few  points. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  197 

proved  almost  as  pronounced  in  the  committees  as 
elsewhere.  At  the  second  meeting  of  the  House  com 
mittee  on  the  4th  of  January  the  Democratic  chairman 
introduced  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  the  power 
of  the  president  of  the  Senate  was  confined  to  open 
ing  the  returns ;  while  on  the  loth  Mr.  McCrary  intro 
duced  one  to  the  effect  "that  the  certificates  of  the 
proper  state  authorities,  executed  according  to  law, 
....  if  not  conclusive,  are  at  least  prima  facie 
evidence,  and  cannot  be  set  aside  or  disregarded  by 
one  House  without  the  concurrence  of  the  other." 
These  two  widely  divergent  resolutions  indicate  clearly 
that  in  a  week's  time  nothing  definite  had  been  ac 
complished.  Still  "the  work  of  crystallization"  had 
been  progressing,  and  the  time  had  not  been  wholly 
wasted,  for  to  the  same  meeting  of  the  loth  Mr.  Mc 
Crary  brought  a  plan  which  was  in  many  respects  sim 
ilar  to  that  finally  adopted. 

His  plan,  which  in  some  of  its  features  was  not 
unlike  the  bill  of  1800,  provided  for  an  independent 
tribunal,  to  be  composed  of  the  chief  justice  and  a 
certain  number  of  associate  justices,  whose  decisions 
were  to  be  final  unless  overruled  by  the  concurrent 
vote  of  both  houses.  After  a  futile  debate  that  night 
on  the  Payne  resolution,  the  plan  was  taken  up  and 
discussed  for  some  time.  On  the  following  day,  with 
the  consent  of  the  Republican  members,  it  was 
amended  so  that  the  decisions  of  the  tribunal  were  not 
to  be  final  unless  concurred  in  by  both  houses.  An 
other  amendment  excluded  Chief  Justice  Waite,  be- 

14 


198  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

cause  he  was  thought  to  be  hostile  to  Tilden.  It  was 
then  informally  agreed  that  the  commission  ought  to 
consist  of  the  five  senior  associate  justices,  namely 
Clifford,  Swayne,  Davis,  Miller,  and  Field. 

Meanwhile  the  Senate  committee  had  also  evolved 
a  plan.  Their  plan  had  grown  out  of  a  proposition 
introduced  by  Senator  Edmunds  in  the  Senate  com 
mittee  about  the  same  time  that  Mr.  McCrary  intro 
duced  his  into  the  House  committee. 1  Unlike  the 
House  proposal,  the  Senate  plan  provided  for  a  com 
mission  of  thirteen,  composed  of  nine  members  of  Con 
gress  and  the  four  senior  associate  justices.  In 
choosing  the  nine  each  house  was  to  choose  five,  and 
then  one  of  the  ten  was  to  be  eliminated  by  lot. 

On  the  1 2th  the  two  plans  were  presented  to  the 
two  committees  at  a  joint  session  held  in  the  Senate 
judiciary  room.  On  the  following  day  at  a  second 
joint  session  the  House  committee  consented  to  adopt 
that  feature  of  the  Senate  committee's  plan  which 
provided  for  a  tripartite  commission ;  while  the  Sen 
ate  committee,  in  turn,  agreed  that  the  number  of 
members  should  be  fifteen  instead  of  thirteen,  and  that 
the  "lot"  feature  should  be  applied  only  in  choosing 
the  judges.  Before  the  meeting  adjourned  all  the 
members,  except  Mr.  Springer,  who  wished  time  to 
consider,  had  agreed  that  the  names  of  the  six  senior 
associate  justices  were  to  be  put  into  a  hat,  one  was 
then  to  be  drawn  out,  and  the  persons  whose  names 


1  Mr.  Edmunds  says  that,  as  he  remembers  it,   Mr.   McCrary 
and   he    did    not    work    together. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  199 

remained   were  to  constitute  the  judicial   portion   of 
the  commission. 

This  meeting  took  place  on  Saturday,  January  I3th, 
Before  the  following  Monday,  through  some  "leak"  in 
the  committees,  the  plan  became  known  to  the  public. 
The  result  was  that  much  opposition,  particularly  to 
the  "lot"  feature,  developed  among  the  Democrats, 
who  saw  that  under  it  the  chances  would  be  against 
them.  Mr.  Tilden,  who  was  personally  consulted  by 
Mr.  Hewitt  in  New  York,  utterly  declined  to  approve 
the  plan.  He  opposed  compromise  of  any  sort,  and 
insisted  that  the  House  should  stand  out  for  its  right 
to  participate  in  the  actual  counting  and  to  proceed  to 
elect  in  case  no  one  received  a  majority  of  the  elec 
toral  votes.  Mr.  Tilden  placed  much  faith  in  the 
effect  of  the  publication  of  a  compilation  of  the  pre 
cedents  which  Mr.  John  Bigelow  had  been  preparing, 
and  which  was  published  about  this  time  under  title 
of  Presidential  Counts.  He  believed  that  if  the  Dem 
ocrats  held  firm  the  Republicans  would  not  dare  to 
carry  through  their  plan  for  having  the  president  of 
the  Senate  declare  the  election  of  Hayes.  The  plan 
which,  without  his  approval,  the  Democratic  leaders 
were  considering  at  Washington,  was,  he  said,  "a 
panic  of  pacificators.  They  will  act  in  haste  and  re 
pent  at  leisure."  "Why  surrender  now?"  he  asked. 
"You  can  always  surrender."  He  was  especially  hos 
tile  to  the  "lot"  device,  and  is  reported  to  have  said 


2OO  The  Hayes-Til  den 

next  day  regarding  it:  "I  may  lose  the  Presidency, 
but  I  will  not  raffle  for  it."1 

When  the  committees  met  again  on  Monday,  Mr. 
Payne  therefore  announced  on  behalf  of  the  Demo 
crats  that  the  six-judge  plan  would  have  to  be  drop 
ped,  for  the  opposition  to  it  was  so  strong  that  it  could 
never  pass  the  House.  Mr.  Tilden's  influence,  how 
ever,  was  by  no  means  great  enough  to  induce  the 
Democratic  leaders  to  give  up  the  idea  of  compromise. 
They  merely  endeavored  to  evolve  a  less  objectionable 
plan,  and  Mr.  Payne,  speaking  for  the  Democrats  of 
the  House  committee,  proposed  in  lieu  of  the  six-judge 
plan,  "the  selection  of  the  five  senior  associate  jus 
tices  outright,  as  in  the  original  House  bill.  The  com 
mittee  earnestly  believes  that  the  selection  of  these  five, 
two  being  understood  to  be  in  sympathy  with  the  Re 
publicans,  twc  with  the  Democracy,  and  the  fifth  [Jus 
tice  David  Davis  of  Illinois]  leaning  no  more  to  one 
side  than  the  other,  would  assure  the  non-partisan 
character  of  the  commission,  and  give  the  odd  number 
without  a  resort  to  the  'lot'  system  to  which  there  is  in 
many  minds  a  very  serious  objection." 

"This,"  says  Mr.  Northrup,  the  secretary  of  the 
House  committee,  "precipitated  a  discussion  of  the 
political  bias  of  Justice  David  Davis.  The  distin 
guished  Illinois  jurist  whom  Abraham  Lincoln  had 
placed  on  the  supreme  bench  was  thenceforth,  till  the 
committees  had  come  to  a  final  agreement,  the  storm- 
center  of  earnest  disputation.  The  Republicans  tena- 

1  Bigelow,  Tilden,  II,  pp.  75-76  ;  Marble,  A  Secret  Chapter  of 
Political  History;  statement  of  Mr.  Bigelow  to  the  author. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  201 

ciously  argued  that  Justice  Davis  was,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  a  Democrat,  and  that  his  selection  should 
be  charged  up  against  the  Democrats.  Just  as  stren 
uously  the  Democratic  committeemen  insisted  that  he 
occupied  a  midway  position  between  the  parties,  and 
therefore  could  with  entire  propriety  serve  as  the  fifth 
wheel  of  the  commission  coach.  Senator  Edmunds 
promptly  took  issue  with  Mr.  Payne's  characterization 
of  Justice  Davis  as  an  Independent.  'Judge  Davis/ 
said  the  cynical  Edmunds,  'is  one  of  those  Indepen 
dents  who  stand  always  ready  to  accept  Democratic 
nominations.  It  is  my  observation  that  such  men  are 
generally  the  most  extreme  in  their  partisanship.  I 
would  rather  intrust  a  decision  to  an  out-and-out  Dem 
ocrat  than  to  a  so-called  Independent.' ':  Mr. 
Springer,  on  the  other  hand,  said:  "Judge  Davis  is 
just  about  as  much  a  Democrat  as  Horace  Greeley  was 
in  1871 ;  he  is  not  and  never  was  a  Democrat.  His 
most  intimate  friends,  among  whom  I  may  count  my 
self,  don't  know  to-day  whether  he  favored  Tilden  or 
Hayes.  He  didn't  vote  at  all.  Our  people  in  Illi 
nois,  when  he  was  mentioned  for  the  Presidency,  were 
utterly  hostile  to  his  nomination  because  he  was  not  a 
Democrat,  and  had  no  standing  in  that  party.  They 
only  know  that  he  is  absolutely  honest  and  fair." 

All  the  next  day,  January  i6th,  was  spent  in  dis 
cussion  without  any  agreement  being  reached.  The 
Democrats  of  the  House  committee  tendered  the  five- 
senior-justices  plan,  with  the  concession  that  the  deci 
sions  of  the  tribunal  should  be  final  unless  overruled 


2O2  The  Hayes-Tilden 

by  both  houses,  but  the  Republicans  could  not  bring 
themselves  to  accept  Davis.  Various  other  proposals 
were  made.  Mr.  Hoar  suggested  an  evenly  divided 
commission,  with  power  to  call  in  an  outsider  in  case  of 
a  deadlock.  Senator  Thurman  proposed  an  even  num 
ber  of  judges,  say  four  to  six;  he  believed  they  would 
not  "range  themselves  on  party  lines.  No  doubt  they 
would  decide  as  they  believed  right."  Mr.  Hewitt  said 
he  would  be  willing  to  let  four  judges  select  a  fifth, 
and  the  suggestion  found  favor  with  Mr.  Hoar.  After 
rejecting  the  five-senior-justices  plan,  the  Senate  com 
mittee  tendered  a  counter-proposition  along  the  line 
of  Hewitt's  suggestion ;  the  new  scheme  provided  for 
a  commission  composed  of  five-  senators,  five  repre 
sentatives,  and  the  four  senior  justices  (Clifford, 
Davis,  Swayne,  and  Miller),  who  should  name  a  fifth. 
To  this  Payne  demurred,  saying  Davis  was  not  a  Dem 
ocrat  and  ought  not  to  be  charged  to  the  Democrats 
as  one.  Senator  Bayard,  however,  being  very  anxious 
for  a,  compromise,  supported  the  proposition.  He 
thought  it  "rather  saddening  that  the  agreement  should 
hinge  on  the  quantum  of  bias  in  Judge  Davis ;"  he 
believed  "that  in  this  hour  of  great  danger  to  the 
institutions  of  this  country  there  will  be  evolved  a 
feeling  above  party." 

At  the  joint  meeting  on  the  following  day  Mr.  Payne 
announced  that  the  majority  (meaning,  of  course,  the 
Democrats)  of  his  committee  were  unwilling  to  assent 
to  the  proposal  which  required  them  to  take  Judge 
Davis  as  a  Democrat.  He  then  said  that  Mr.  Hewitt 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  203 

would  make  "a  proposition  which  at  first  blush  had  the 
unanimous  approval  of  the  House  committee."  Mr. 
Hewitt  thereupon  stated  that  he  believed  none  of  the 
propositions  thus  far  made  could  pass,  because  each 
leaned  one  'way  or  the  other.  As  an  "absolutely  just'* 
plan  he  therefore  suggested  that  the  two  senior  jus 
tices,  Clifford  and  Swayne,  should  each  select  another 
justice  and  that  these  four  should  then  select  a  fifth. 

The  Senate  committee,  however,  rejected  Mr.  Hew 
itt's  proposition,  and  submitted  yet  another  one,  which 
was  to  take  the  associate  justices  from  the  first,  third, 
eighth,  and  ninth  circuits,  and  let  them  select  a  fifth. 
In  supporting  this  plan  Senator  Edmunds  urged  that  it 
had  the  merit  of  being  based  on  geographical  consid 
erations  —  Justice  Clifford  representing  New  England, 
Justice  Strong  the  Middle  States,  Justice  Miller  the 
Northwest,  and  Justice  Field  the  Pacific  slope  —  while 
at  the  same  time  maintaining  the  desired  political  equi 
poise  of  the  commission. 

After  a  conference  among  themselves  the  House 
committee,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Hunton,  who 
wished  to  consider  the  matter  over  night,  agreed  to  the 
plan.  The  two  chairmen  thereupon  began  to  compare 
the  bills  in  the  hands  of  each,  and,  with  the  assistance 
of  other  members,  to  perfect  the  phraseology.  Sen 
ator  Edmunds  also  read  -a  draft  of  an  address  prepared 
by  him  to  accompany  the  report  of  the  bill  to  the  two 
houses.  On  motion.  Senator  Thurman  was  appointed 
to  act  with  him  in  completing  the  address,  which  was 
to  be  signed  in  the  morning. 


204  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Several  of  the  members  expressed  great  relief  at 
the  successful  outcome  of  their  labors.  Senator  Thur- 
man  said  the  agreement  would  be  hailed  with  joy  from 
one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other,  and  the  effect  on 
business  would  be  immediately  felt.  Mr.  Hewitt 
thought  it  was  "worth  five  hundred  millions  to  the 
country  at  once."  Mr.  Hoar  not  unjustly  said  that 
"this  committee's  action  will  be  considered  as  one  of 
the  important  events  in  history." 

But  one  senator,  namely  Morton,  was  far  from  be 
ing  so  well  satisfied.  He  objected  especially  to  cer 
tain  features  which  might  perhaps  be  taken  as  con 
ferring  power  upon  the  Commission  to  go  behind  the 
returns.  In  reply  to  this  objection  Senator  Thurman 
made  a  statement  which,  in  the  light  of  subsequent 
events,  possesses  considerable  importance.  "The  bill," 
declared  he,  "decides  no  disputed  questions,  creates  no 
new  power,  but  submits  all  disputes  to  this  tribunal  with 
the  same  powers,  no  more,  no  less,  than  belong  to 
Congress,  jointly  or  severally.  It  is  as  near  a  non 
committal  bill,  as  to  disputed  questions,  as  could  be 
made."  But  Morton  continued  to  frown  upon  the 
bill;  and  when  on  the  following  day  the  report  to 
accompany  it  was  in  readiness, l  he  alone,  of  all  the 
members  of  the  two  committees,  refused  his  signature. 

The  report2  justified  the  bill  both  on  constitutional 

1  When  the  report  was  being  discussed,  Mr.  Hoar  objected  to 
the    phrase    that    it   was    "comparatively   unimportant"    who    be 
came    President,    and    declared    that    in    his    opinion    it    was    of 

immense   importance."     Senator  Conklingr  criticised  the  phrase, 
such  jurisdiction  is  not  vested  by  the  Constitution,   this  bill 
creates  it.        Both  phrases  were  accordingly  stricken  out. 

2  For  the   report   see  Record,  pp.   713-714 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  205 

grounds  and  on  grounds  of  expediency.  The  bill,  it 
argued,  "is  only  directed  to  ascertaining,  for  the  pur 
pose  and  in  the  aid  of  the  counting,  what  are  the  con 
stitutional  votes  of  the  respective  states;  and  what 
ever  jurisdiction  exists  for  such  purpose,  the  bill  only 
regulates  the  method  of  exercising  it.  The  Constitu 
tion,  our  great  instrument  for  liberty  and  order,  speaks 
in  the  amplest  language  for  all  such  cases,  in  whatever 
aspect  they  may  be  presented.  It  declares  that  Con 
gress  shall  have  power  'to  make  all  laws  which  shall 
be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution 
the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers  vested  by 
this  Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof.' '  "It 
is  impossible,"  the  report  continued,  "to  estimate  the 
material  loss  that  the  country  daily  sustains  from  the 
existing  state  of  uncertainty.  It  directly  and  power 
fully  tends  to  unsettle  and  paralyze  business,  to  weaken 
public  and  private  credit,  and  to  create  apprehensions 
in  the  minds  of  the  people  that  disturb  the  peaceful 
tenor  of  their  ways  and  mar  their  happiness.  It  does 
far  more ;  it  tends  to  bring  Republican  institutions  into 
discredit  and  to  create  doubts  of  the  success  of  our 
form  of  government  and  of  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Republic.  All  considerations  of  interest,  of  patriotism, 
and  of  justice  unite  in  demanding  of  the  law-making 
power  a  measure  that  will  bring  peace  and  prosperity 
to  the  country  and  show  that  our  Republican  institu 
tions  are  equal  to  any  emergency." 

The  bill  itself,  unquestionably  one  of  the  most  im- 


206  The  Hayes-Tilden 

portant  measures  ever  considered  by  an  American  Con 
gress,  regulated  in  detail  the  whole  procedure  of  the 
count.  It  provided  that  the  two  houses  should  meet 
in  joint  session  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives  on  the  first  Thursday  in  February,  two  weeks 
earlier  than  had  been  the  practice  under  the  then  exist 
ing  law.  The  joint  sessions  were  to  be  presided  over 
by  the  president  of  the  Senate,  and  each  House  was  to 
be  represented  by  two  tellers.  In  case  objections 
should  be  made  to  the  votes  of  a  state  from  which 
there  was  but  one  return  such  objections  were  to  be  in 
writing,  signed  by  at  least  one  member  of  each  House. 
The  two  houses  should  then  vote  separately  upon  the 
question  at  issue,  and  no  vote  or  votes  should  be  ex 
cluded  except  by  concurrent  action.  In  cases  where 
more  than  one  return  had  been  received  these  were  to 
be  opened  and  read,  and  then  submitted  to  a  tribunal 
of  fifteen,  composed  in  the  manner  already  described. 
Provision  was  made  for  filling  any  vacancy  which 
might  occur  in  the  tribunal.  In  the  disputed  cases  all 
the  papers  together  with  written  objections  were  to  be 
submitted  to  the  tribunal,  "which  shall  proceed  to  con 
sider  the  same,  with  the  same  powers,  if  any,  now 
possessed  for  that  purpose  by  the  two  houses  acting 
separately  or  together,  and,  by  a  majority  of  votes, 
decide  whether  any  and  what  votes  from  such  state 
are  the  votes  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  how  many  and  what  persons  were 
duly  appointed  electors  in  such  state,  and  may  therein 
take  into  view  such  petitions,  depositions,  and  other 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  207 

papers,  if  any,  as  shall,  by  the  Constitution  and  now 
existing  law,  be  competent  and  pertinent  in  such  con 
sideration."  The  decision  of  the  commission  in  dis 
puted  cases  was  to  stand  unless  an  objection,  signed 
by  at  least  five  senators  and  five  representatives, 
should  be  sustained  by  the  separate  vote  of  both 
houses.  To  facilitate  the  count,  there  was  to  be  no 
debate  at  joint  sessions,  and  debate  at  the  separate 
sessions  was  limited  to  two  hours.  The  joint  meeting 
was  not  to  be  dissolved  until  the  count  should  be  com 
pleted;  and  recesses,  except  when  a  case  was  before 
the  commission,  were  not  to  be  taken  beyond  ten  A.  M. 
the  following  day,  or  from  Saturday  to  the  following 
Monday.  Lastly  the  bill  disclaimed  any  infringing 
upon  any  right,  if  such  existed,  to  question  in  the 
courts  the  title  of  any  person  to  the  Presidency  or  the 
Vice-Presidency.  a 

The  news  that  the  committees  had  at  last  agreed 
upon  a  plan  was  received  with  much  satisfaction  in  all 
parts  of  the  country.  A  large  portion  of  the  press 
spoke  favorably  of  the  bill ;  the  business  interests  were 
delighted  at  the  prospect  of  a  peaceful  settlement ;  and 
petitions  in  its  behalf  began  to  pour  in  upon  Congress. 

Most  of  the  Democrats  both  in  and  out  of  Congress 
at  once  showed  themselves  favorable  to  the  bill,  while 
perhaps  a  majority  of  the  Republicans  showed  them 
selves  inclined  to  oppose  it.  The  Democrats  were 
the  more  inclined  to  treat,  not  because  they  had  more 
grace,  but  because,  despite  their  pretended  confidence, 


1  Record,  p.    713. 


208  The  Hayes-Til  den 

they  were  at  a  disadvantage  and  knew  it.  *  Mr.  Ferry 
had  all  the  returns  in  his  possession,  and  was  a  partisan 
Republican.  President  Grant  was  also  a  Republican  ; 
and,  although  anxious  for  a  peaceful  settlement,  2  he 
had  given  out  that  he  intended  to  see  his  duly  declared 
successor  inaugurated.  It  was  well  known  that  in 
case  the  two  houses  were  unable  to  come  to  an  agree 
ment  Mr.  Ferry  would  proceed  to  count  the  votes,  and 
would  declare  Hayes  the  President-elect.  Mr.  Hayes 
would  then  be  inaugurated  under  the  protection  of  the 
United  States  army.  Even  though  the  House  should 
refuse  to  recognize  his  election  and  should  proceed  to 
choose  Tilden,  that  gentleman  would  be  unable  to  set 
himself  up  as  more  than  the  de  Jufi  President.  His 
opponent  would  have  control  of  the  official  machinery, 
with  appropriations  sufficient  to  last  until  the  first  of 
July.  Mr.  Tilden  and  his  supporters  would  thus  be 
put  in  the  position  of  opposing  the  regular  govern 
ment.  3  Such  a  position,  as  many  independent  and 
even  Democratic  journals  pointed  out  was  one  which 
the  party,  with  its  recent  antecedents,  could  not  afford 
to  assume.  4  It  could  safely  be  forecast  that  in  case 
the  Democrats  should  resort  to  force,  the  majority  of 
the  people  would  take  the  side  of  the  government 
whose  seat  was  at  Washington.  5  For  this  reason,  if 
no  other,  force  could  not  succeed.  Another  reason 


1  The  Nation,  XXIV,  p.   4. 

2  Recollections  of   George  W.   Childs,   pp.    77-81. 

3  Herald,  Dec.    23d. 

4  The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.  364  ;  files  of  Herald  and  Sun. 

5  Some  prominent  Democrats  had  publicly  stated  that  they 
would  not  stand  by  the  party  in  a  resort  to  force.     See  Herald 
of  Dec.  19th.     Some  of  these  were  ex-Confederate  generals. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  209 

why  it  could  not  —  a  reason  which  brought  to  pause 
hot-heads  with  whom  other  considerations  weighed 
but  little  —  was  that  at  the  head  of  the  government 
was  a  man,  who,  whatever  might  be  said  of  his  capacity 
as  a  civil  administrator,  was  known  beyond  all  cavil 
to  be  a  peerless  leader  on  the  field  of  battle. 

The  Democrats  were  influenced  by  yet  other  motives 
to  support  the  compromise  plan. a  Many  favored  it 
out  of  genuine  patriotism ;  while  some  disliked  the  idea 
of  the  election  devolving  upon  Congress,  since  though 
that  would  result  in  the  election  of  Tilden  by  the 
House,  it  would  also  result  in  the  choice  of  a  Republi 
can  Vice-President  by  the  Senate.  These  last  and 
most  others  believed  with  Senator  Gordon  of  Georgia 
that  with  the  compromise  plan  both  Democratic  can 
didates  were  certain  of  election.  They  reasoned  that 
only  one  more  vote  was  needed,  that  twenty  were 
in  dispute,  and  that,  out  of  so  many,  the  Commission, 
with  Justice  Davis  as  the  fifth  judge,  would  surely 
award  the  Democrats  at  least  one.  2 

The  very  considerations  which  caused  Democrats  to 
favor  the  compromise  led  many  Republicans  to  oppose 
it.  To  them  the  chances  for  success  looked  extremely 
dubious.  To  elect  their  candidates,  they  must  take 
every  trick.  If  Tilden  should  receive  so  much  as  a 
single  one  of  the  disputed  votes,  the  game  was  up.  And 
Republicans  looked  forward  with  reluctance  to  such  an 
outcome.  Some  groaned  at  the  thought  of  losing  the 


1  For  an  analysis  of  Democratic  motives  see  Bigelow,  Tilden, 
II,  p.  63. 

2  The   Nation,   XXIV,    p.    19. 


2io  The  Hayes-Tilden 

fat  patronage  of  a  hundred  thousand  offices.  Others 
•were  more  concerned  at  the  thought  of  relinquishing 
the  reins  of  power  to  men  whom  they  believed  to  be 
at  heart  disloyal  to  the  Union.  It  is  not  strange,, 
therefore,  that  the  most  radical  opposed  a  plan  which 
looked  not  unlike  "giving  up  the  fort."  They  be 
lieved  that  in  case  no  compromise  were  made  Hayes 
would  be  peacefully  inaugurated  —  at  any  rate  he 
would  be  inaugurated.  Mr.  Hayes  himself  believed 
the  bill  unconstitutional,  and  opposed  it,  though  not 
actively. 1 

On  the  other  hand,  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
party  were  unwilling  to  support  the  extremists.  Chief 
among  those  favoring  a  compromise  was  the  President 
himself.  He  had  all  along  been  'working  to  secure  a 
peaceful  settlement,  and  he  now  used  his  influence  in 
behalf  of  the  bill.  As  a  result  of  his  urging  Senator 
Conkling  of  New  York,  and  doubtless  others  under 
took  to  work  for  its  passage.  2 

When  the  bill  came  up  in  the  Senate  on  the  2Oth  of 
January,  Senator  Edmunds,  chairman  of  the  Senate 
committee,  made  a  powerful  and  patriotic  plea,  singu 
larly  free  from  partisanship,  in  its  behalf.  He  argued 
that  it  was  constitutional,  that  it  did  not  take  away 
from  either  the  president  of  the  Senate  or  the 
House  of  Representatives  any  power  which  the  Con 
stitution  "vested  in  them  free  from  limit  and  free  from 


1  Hayes  thought  the  power  to  count  belonged  to  tne  presi 
dent  of  the  Senate. — Letter  to  Sherman  in  John  Sherman's  Recol 
lections,   I,   p.    561;    to   Carl   Schurz,   Jan.    17th   and   23d.   and  to 
Alonzo  Taft,  Jan.   26th,  in  the  Hayes  Papers. 

2  George  W.   Childs,    Reminiscences,   pp.    77-80. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  211 

regulation."     He  urged  its  passage  as  a  wise  measure 
of  public  policy. 1 

The  opposition  in  the  Senate  was  led  by  Morton. 
On  Monday,  the  22d,  although  ill  and  scarcely  able  to 
attend,  he  made  a  bitter  speech  against  it.  He  de 
clared  in  opening  that  the  bill  was  a  "literal  product 
of  'the  Mississippi  plan ;'  that  the  shadow  of  intimida 
tion"  had  entered  the  Senate;  that  members  of  Con 
gress  were  "acting  under  the  apprehension  of  vio 
lence,  of  some  great  revolutionary  act"  which  would 
"threaten  the  safety  and  continuance  of  our  institu 
tions."  He  did  not  believe  "in  the  reality  of  the  dan 
ger."  He  regarded  the  bill  as  a  compromise  which 
would  "take  its  place  alongside  of  the  Compromise  of 
1820  and  the  Compromise  of  1850."  He  contended 
that  Rutherford  B.  Hayes  had  been  elected  President ; 
that  if  he  should  "be  counted  in,  as  eighteen  Presi 
dents  were  successively  counted  in  from  the  begin 
ning  of  this  government,"  there  would  be  "no  violence 
and  no  revolution."  In  discussing  the  constitutional 
question  he  admitted  that  Congress  had  power  to  leg 
islate  upon  the  subject,  "yet  in  the  absence  of  legisla 
tion,  the  President  of  the  Senate  must  count  the  votes" 
in  order  "to  prevent  a  deadlock."  In  support  of  his 
view  he  quoted  from  Chancellor  Kent  a  statement  to 
the  effect  that  "in  the  absence  of  all  legislative  pro 
vision  on  the  subject,  ....  the  President  of  the 
Senate  counts  the  votes  and  determines  the  result,  and 
....  the  two  houses  are  present  only  as  spec- 


1  Record,  pp.    767-771. 


212  The  Hayes-Tilden 

tators  to  witness  the  fairness  and  accuracy  of  the 
transaction  and  to  act  only  if  no  choice  be  made  by 
the  electors."  Morton  asked  whether  the  five  judges 
would  be  "officers,"  and  whether,  if  so,  they  must  not 
be  appointed  as  the  Constitution  prescribes.  He  ques 
tioned  the  power  of  Congress  to  delegate  its  authority 
in  the  premises,  pronounced  the  whole  scheme  a  patch- 
ed-up  "contrivance,"  and  finally  was  forced  to  con 
clude  from  sheer  physical  exhaustion. 1 

Frelinghuysen  of  New  Jersey  refused  to  follow 
Morton's  lead,  and  spoke  in  behalf  of  the  bill.  2  After 
a  few  other  speeches  had  been  made,  Edmunds  asked 
for  an  immediate  vote,  but  the  matter  was  held  over 
till  the  next  day.  3 

On  that  day,  after  a  speech  in  opposition  by  Sher 
man,  4  Senator  Conkling  began  an  elaborate  and  char 
acteristic  speech,  which  filled  the  galleries  with  spec 
tators  and  consumed  the  greater  part  of  two  days. 
He  reviewed  the  precedents  in  great  detail  to  show 
that  in  no  instance  had  the  president  of  the  Senate 
assumed  of  his  own  authority  to  do  anything  beyond 
opening  the  certificates.  He  referred  to  the  Twenty- 
Second  Joint  Rule,  to  the  Sherman  Resolution  of  in 
quiry  in  1872,  and  to  Morton's  own  bill  as  serving  to 
show  that  Congress  could  regulate  the  count.  He 
accused  Morton  and  the  other  extreme  Republicans  of 
seeking  to  provoke  a  deadlock  as  a  result  of  which  the 


1  Record,  pp.  799-801. 

2  Ibid,  pp.    801-805. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   805-808. 

4  Ibid,  pp.    820-825. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  213 

president  of  the  Senate  must  act.  "If,"  he  exclaimed, 
"there  was  ever  a  political  Hell-Gate  paved  and  honey 
combed  with  dynamite,  there  it  is."  He  pointed  out 
that  only  a  few  months  before  Morton  himself  had 
voted  for  a  proposition  to  import  the  chief  justice  into 
a  similar  tribunal.  He  said  he  would  vote  for  the  bill 
because  it  was  constitutional,  would  prevent  disorder, 
and  would  be  to  the  lasting  benefit  of  the  people. l 

Bayard,  Christiancy,  Thurman,  and  others  spoke  in 
behalf  of  the  bill.  At  half-past  twelve  o'clock  A.  M. 
of  January  25th  Morton,  after  an  ineffectual  attempt 
to  secure  an  adjournment  on  the  plea  of  being  too  ill 
and  worn-out  to  speak,  began  his  closing  argument 
against  it.  In  the  course  of  his  speech  he  once  more 
advanced  his  theory  of  the  power  of  the  president  of 
the  Senate.  It  was  impossible,  he  asserted,  to  con 
sider  such  a  body  as  the  proposed  Commission  a  mere 
committee  of  Congress.  He  admitted  that  perhaps  his 
views  upon  the  count  had  not  always  been  consistent ; 
but,  said  he,  "there  are  no  popes  in  this  body."  He 
could  show  that  every  member  of  the  committee  had 
expressed  sentiments  different  from  those  contained  in 
the  bill,  and  he  quoted  a  statement  by  Conkling  entirely 
at  variance  with  a  portion  of  it.  Any  measure,  declared 
he,  which  might  result  in  the  seating  of  Tilden  and 
Hendricks  ought  to  be  opposed,  because  the  welfare  of 
humanity  demanded  that  the  Republican  party  remain 
in  power.  "It  is  not  to  our  interest,"  he  frankly 


1  Record,    pp.    825-831,    870-878. 
15 


214  The  Hayes-Tilden 

stated,  "to  depart  from  that  method  pursued  for  sev 
enty-five  years  simply  to  give  our  political  opponents 
advantages  and  chances  which  they  now  have  not."  : 

But  all  the  efforts  of  the  extremists  against  the  bill 
proved  unavailing. 2  An  amendment  forbidding  the 
Commission  from  going  behind  the  returns  and  an 
other  granting  it  that  right  were  voted  down.8  A 
final  vote  was  taken  at  7  A.  M.  after  an  all  night  session, 
and  resulted  in  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  47  to  17.  4 

Although  the  bill  had  been  reported  to  the  House  on 
the  same  day  as  to  the  Senate,  its  consideration  was 
not  begun  by  the  former  body  until  some  days  later. 
From  the  i/th  to  the  24th  of  January  the  House  de 
voted  most  of  its  time  to  debating  a  set  of  resolutions 
reported  by  the  committee  which  had  been  directed  to 
investigate  and  report  upon  the  powers,  privileges,  and 
duties  of  the  House  in  counting  the  electoral  vote. 
These  resolutions,  which  were  really  the  work  of  Mr. 
Tilden, 5  denied  the  power  of  the  president  of  the 
Senate  to  do  more  than  receive  and  open  the  certifi 
cates  ;  they  asserted  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  two 
houses  have  the  power  to  examine  and  ascertain  the 
vote,  and  held  that  no  return  could  be  counted  against 
the  judgment  and  determination  of  the  House.  6 

On  the  25th  of  January,  however,  the  electoral  bill 


1  Record,    pp.    894-898. 

2  For  a  speech  by  Elaine  against  the  bill  see  Ibid,  p.   898. 

3  Ibid,  p.   911-912. 

4  Ibid,  p.  913. 

5  Bigelow,   II,  pp.   65-66.     They  were  slightly  changed  by  the 
committee. 

€  Record,  p.  609. 


Disputed  Election  of  1 876  215 

was  at  last  taken  up.  Mr.  McCrary  opened  the  de 
bate  with  a  plea  in  behalf  of  favorable  action. l  He 
emphasized  the  fact  that  there  was  "widespread,  hon 
est  difference  of  opinion."  He  pointed  out  that  many 
Democrats,  including  Senators  Bayard,  Whyte,  and 
Stevenson,  had  at  one  time  or  another  held  that  in 
the  absence  of  legislation  the  power  to  count  inhered 
in  the  president  of  the  Senate;  while  many  Republi 
cans,  including  Senators  Boutwell,  Dawes,  and  Chris- 
tiancy,  had  opposed  that  theory.  He  showed  also  that 
Democrats  like  Bayard,  Maxey,  Whyte,  and  others, 
were  on  record  as  opposing  the  right  of  one  house  to 
throw  out  the  vote  of  a  state ;  while  many  Republicans 
were  on  record  as  supporting  the  contested  right. 
When  there  was  such  difference,  there  might  well  be 
compromise. 

Lamar  of  Mississippi,  Harrison  and  Springer  of 
Illinois,  Watterson  of  Kentucky,  and  many  others  of 
both  parties  made  speeches  in  behalf  of  the  bill.  Hun- 
ton  of  Virginia  cited  the  plan  of  1800,  the  Twenty- 
Second  Joint  Rule,  and  other  precedents  in  order  to 
show  that  the  bill  was  constitutional. 2  Hewitt  of 
New  York  said  that  "a  hundred  thousand  place  holders 
in  esse  and  an  equal  number  of  place  hunters  in  posse 
were  busily  attacking  the  bill  foj-  the  same  reason  as 
did  the  "  'Ephesian  worker  in  copper'  the  early  Chris 
tians"— it  threatened  "to  spoil  their  trade/'  The 
very  fact  that  it  was  said  on  the  Republican  side  that 
the  bill  was  a  scheme  to  make  Tilden  President,  while 

1  Record,  pp.   930-935. 

2  Ibid,  pp.    935-939. 


216  The  Hayes-Tilden 

it  was  said  on  the  Democratic  side  that  it  was  a  plan 
to  make  Hayes  President,  was,  he  thought,  sure  proof 
of  the  plan's  fairness. l  Other  speakers  expressed  the 
belief  that  the  bill  offered  the  only  hope  of  escape  from 
a  dual  government  and  civil  war.  2  Hill  of  Georgia 
said  the  South  was  for  peace,  3  and  the  sentiment  was 
approved  by  most  of  the  speakers  from  that  section. 

Hale  of  Maine,  Knott  of  Kentucky,  Monroe  of  Ohio, 
Townsend  of  New  York,  Mills  of  Texas,  Hurlbut  of 
Illinois,  Garfield  of  Ohio,  and  others  spoke  against 
the  bill.  Mills  declared  that  the  Democrats  should 
have  taken  a  bold  stand  on  the  powers  of  the  House ; 
he  objected  chiefly  to  the  provision  that  no  vote  could 
be  excluded  except  by  the  concurrent  vote  of  both 
houses.4  Hurlbut  thought  that  in  arranging  for  the 
choice  of  the  fifth  judge  Congress  had  "gravely  in 
augurated  the  great  national  game  of  draw."  5  One  of 
the  chief  speeches  in  opposition  was  that  by  Garfield. 
He  said  in  part: 

"The  Senate  at  Rome  never  deliberated  a  moment 
after  the  flag  was  hauled  down  which  floated  on  the 
Janiculum  Hill  across  the  Tiber.  That  flag  was  the 
sign  that  no  enemy  of  Rome  breathing  hot  threats  of 
war,  had  entered  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  city ;  and 
when  it  was  struck,  the  Senate  sat  no  longer.  The 
reply  to  war  is  not  words  but  swords. 

"When  you  tell  me  that  civil  war  is  threatened  by 
any  party  or  State  in  this  Republic,  you  have  given 
me  a  supreme  reason  why  an  American  Congress 

1  Record,   pp.    946-948. 

2  See,   for  example,   Watterson's  speech,  Ibid,  p.   1007. 

3  Ibid,  pp.  1008-1009. 

4  Ibid,  pp.  979-982. 

5  Ibid,  p.    1008. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  217 

should  refuse  with  unutterable  scorn  to  listen  to  those 
who  threaten,  or  to  do  any  act  whatever  under  the 
coercion  of  threats  by  any  power  on  the  earth.  With 
all  my  soul  I  despise  your  threat  of  civil  war,  come 
it  from  what  quarter  or  what  party  it  may.  Brave 
men,  certainly  a  brave  nation,  will  do  nothing  under 
such  compulsion."  1 

But,  just  as  in  the  Senate,  the  opponents  of  the  bill 
found  themselves  powerless.  The  pressure  of  public 
opinion  in  favor  of  compromise  was  well-nigh  irre 
sistible,  and  a  perfect  hurricane  of  petitions  was  sweep 
ing  into  Congress. 2  The  Democrats  were  almost 
unanimous  in  favor  of  the 'bill,  and  the  Republicans 
were  not  able  to  muster  their  full  strength  against  it. 
When  a  vote  was  taken  on  January  26th,  the  bill  was 
passed  by  the  overwhelming  majority  of  191  to  86.  3 

A  study  of  the  vote  in  both  houses  sho"ws~  unmis 
takably  that  the  bill  succeeded  by  grace  of  the  support 
given  it  by  most  of  the  Democratic  members  and  by  a 
comparatively  small  number  of  Republicans.  In  the 
Senate  26  Democrats  supported  it,  and  only  one  oppos 
ed  it;  in  the  same  body  21  Republicans  supported  it, 
and  16  opposed  it.  In  the  House  160  Democrats  sup 
ported  it  and  17  opposed  it;  while  only  31  Republicans 
supported  it,  and  69  opposed  it.  In  the  light  of  these 
figures  it  seems  almost  fair  to  call  the  act  a  Democratic 
measure. 4  Whatever,  therefore,  should  be  the  out 
come  of  the  labors  of  the  tribunal  thus  created,  it 
could  reasonably  be  held  that  the  Democrats  were  in 

1  Record,   p.    968. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   913,   946,   948,   949,   1024,    1049,   etc. 

3  Ibid,  p.    1050. 

4  For  a  discussion  of  this  matter  see  Blaine  II,  p.   587. 


21 8  The  Hayes-Tilden 

honor   bound  to   accept   its   decisions   and   abide   by 
them. 

Unquestionably  one  of  the  chief  factors  in  the  Dem 
ocratic  support  of  the  measure  and  the  Republican 
opposition  to  it  lay  in  the  prevailing  belief  that  Justice 
"David  Davis  would  be  the  fifth  representative  of  the 
supreme  court.  "In  the  ponderous  Illinois  jurist 
were  centered  the  hopes  of  Democracy,  the  apprehen 
sions  of  Republicanism."  But  it  has  well  been  said 
that  all  things  are  uncertain  in  love,  war  and  politics — • 
especially  in  politics.  At  the  capital  of  Illinois  while 
the  bill  was  still  pending  occurred  one  of  those  unex 
pected  events  which  so  often  seem  to  change  the  course 
of  history. l  In  that  city  the  supporters  of  General 
Logan  had  for  some  time  been  vainly  trying  to  secure 
his  re-election  to  the  Federal  Senate.  The  situation 
was  complicated  by  the  presence  in  the  legislature  of 
five  Independents,  who  held  the  balance  of  power. 
For  more  than  a  week  the  balloting  proceeded  without 
result.  During  that  time  a  few  votes  were  cast  for 
Judge  Davis.  On  the  24th,  the  day  before  the  elec 
toral  bill  came  up  in  the  House  at  Washington,  the 
Democrats  at  Springfield,  with  strange  fatuity,  began 
to  regard  him  as  the  proper  man  on  whom  to  form  a 
combination;2  and  on  the  following  day  he  received 


1  Assuming,  of  course,  that  Davis  would  have  voted  with  the 
Democratic  members  in  at  least  one  case.     In  a  letter  written 
to   Mr.  Joseph   M.   Rogers  the  late  Senator  Hoar  expressed   the 
belief  that  since  Davis  "was  a  great  lawyer  and  at  heart  a  very 

earnest    Republican he    would    ....    have    never 

agreed  to  any  other  decision  than  that  to  which  the  majority  of 
the  Commission  came." 

2  Mr.  Hewitt  believed  to  the  day  of  his  death  that  the  elec 
tion    of    Davis    was    the    result    of    a    corrupt    bargain    engin- 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  219 

the  votes  of  three  Independents  and  of  the  98  Demo 
crats,  making  exactly  a  majority.1 

The  news  came  as  a  stunning  blow  to  the  Demo 
cratic  leaders  in  Congress;  for  they  realized  that  the 
election  rendered  him  in  a  certain  sense  ineligible  for 
a  place  upon  the  Commission,  and  that  the  fifth  judge 
would  of  necessity  be  chosen  from  out-and-out  Repub 
licans.  2  But  they  had  committed  themselves  too  far 
to  recede ;  and,  still  hoping  for  the  best,  they  voted  for 
the  bill.  Later  they  realized  more  fully  that  this  bit 
of  gaucherie  on  the  part  of  their  compatriots  on  the 
broad  prairies  of  the  West  had  probably  exercised  a 
determining  influence  in  deciding  whether  the  Repub 
lican  or  the  Democratic  party  should  during  the  en 
suing  four  years  control  the  government  of  the  Amer 
ican  people. 

eered  by  Sen.  Morton  to  get  Davis  off  the  Commission  and  se 
cure  a  Democrat  in  his  place.  Mr.  Hewitt  left  an  article  on 
the  disputed  election,  which  is  sometime  to  be  published,  in  which 
he  gives  his  view  of  this  matter.  See  also  Bigelow,  II,  p.  64. 
Mr.  Foulke,  Morton's  biographer,  says  he  has  found  no  evi 
dence  to  support  the  story.  It  seems  entirely  improbable. 

1  New  York  World  and  Times  of  Jan.  25th  and  26th;  Annual 
Cyclopaedia,   1877,   p.    383. 

2  "The   writer,"    says   Mr.    Northrup,    "will   never   forget   the 
drop  in  the  countenance  of  the  Hon.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  who  had 
charge  of  Tilden's  campaign,  when,  meeting  him  in  the  hall  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  he  informed  him  of  Judge  Davis's 
transfer  from  the  Supreme  Court  to  the  Senate." — Century,  XL. 
p.   983. 


CHAPTER  XI 

EIGHT  TO  SEVEN 

President  Grant  approved  the  Electoral  ^Commission 
bill  on  the  29th,  and  in  doing  so  expressed  to  Congress 
his  great  satisfaction  at  the  adoption  of  a  measure 
that  affords  an  orderly  means  for  deciding  "a  gravely 
exciting  question."  1 

On  the  following  day  each  House  proceeded  by  a 
viva  voce  vote  to  designate  five  of  its  members  to  sit 
upon  the  Commission.  2  The  House  chose  Payne  of 
Ohio,  Hunton  of  Virginia,  Abbott  of  Massachusetts, 
Democrats;  Hoar  of  Massachusetts  and  Garfield  of 
Ohio,  Republicans.  The  Senate  selected  Edmunds  of 
Vermont,  Frelinghuysen  of  New  Jersey,  Morton  of 
Indiana,  Republicans;  Thurman  of  Ohio  and  Bayard 
of  Delaware,  Democrats.  All  these  gentlemen  had,  of 
course,  been  previously  designated  in  party  caucuses. 3 

Naturally  each  caucus  had  done  its  work  with  ex 
treme  care.  It  occasioned  some  remark  at  the  time 
that  the  caucus  of  Senate  Republicans  had  not  chosen 
Conkling.  The  claim  was  later  made  that  the  reason 
why  he  was  not  chosen  was  that  he  believed  Tilden 

1  Record,  p.   1081. 

2  Proceedings  of  the  Electoral   Commission,   pp.    5-6. 

3  World  and    Times  of  Jan.    28th,    29th,   and   30th. 


The  Disputed  Election  of  1876       22 1 

had  been  elected.  But  this  seems  not  to  be  the  cor 
rect  explanation.  A  more  probable  one  is  that  first  of 
all  he  was  a  "Conkling  man ;"  his  popularity  in  the 
Senate  was  not  great ;  he  had  been  indifferent  to  Hayes 
even  during  the  campaign ; l  and  it  was  known  that  he 
thought  it  would  be  better  politics,  since  the  title  was 
in  doubt  and  there  had  been  fraud  on  both  sides,  to 
yield  the  Presidency  to  the  Democrats. 2 

On  the  same  day  the  four  justices  —  Clifford  and 
Field,  Democrats;  and  Strong  and  Miller,  Republi 
cans  —  while  not  greatly  relishing  the  work  they  had 
been  called  upon  to  perform,  met  together  to  select 
the  fifth  justice.  It  appears  that  they  offered  the 
place  to  Justice  Davis,  but  that  he,  being  averse  to 
accepting  the  responsibility,  refused  it  and  based  his 
refusal  on  the  fact  that  he  had  just  been  elected  sen 
ator  by  the  Democrats.  The  justices  were  then  for 
some  time  unable  to  agree  upon  a  substitute ;  there 
seemed  a  possibility  that  the  whole  plan  of  settlement 
might  be  blocked ; 3  but  at  length  they  selected  Justice 
Joseph  P.  Bradley,  of  the  fifth  judicial  circuit.  Justice 
Bradley  was  the  most  acceptable  to  the  Democrats  of 
any  of  the  remaining  justices ;  for  he  was  by  no  means 
a  partisan,  and  in  some  of  his  opinions  had  shown 
himself  out  "of  sympathy  with  the  radical  Republi 
cans.  4 


1  Ante,  p.   36,  note. 

2  Conkling,    Life    and    Letters    of    Roscoe    Conkling,    p.     528. 
Later,   when   he  was  completely  estranged   from  Hayes,   he   took 
a   more   pronounced   view. — Hoar,   II,   p.    44. 

3  McClure's,  XXIII,  p.  83. 

4  New  York   World  of  Feb.   1st.    In  the  opinion  of  that  paper 
Bradley  was  not   satisfactory  to  the  Republicans.     It  expressed 
pleasure  over  his  choice.      See  also  Atlantic,  LXXII,   p.    529. 

\ 


222  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Thursday,  February  1st,  the  day  set  by  the  law  for 
the  count  to  begin,  saw  a  great  crowd  of  sightseers 
in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  In  the 
diplomatic  gallery  were  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  the 
English  minister ;  the  Japanese  and  German  ministers, 
and  other  foreign  representatives,  together  with  their 
suites  and  members  of  their  families.  In  the  other 
galleries  sat  the  wives  and  relatives  of  congressmen 
and  of  the  cabinet  officers,  and  persons  of  lesser  note. 
On  the  floor  itself  were  Justices  Field  and  Miller  of 
the  Commission,  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  jurist  and  member 
of  Buchanan's  cabinet,  J.  D.  Cameron,  the  secretary 
of  war,  Charles  O'Conor  of  the  New  York  bar, 
George  Bancroft,  diplomatist  and  historian,  General 
Sherman,  and  many  other  distinguished  visitors. 

At  one  o'clock  the  door-keeper  of  the  House  an 
nounced  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  That  body 
then  entered  the  hall,  preceded  by  their  sergeant-at- 
arms,  and  headed  by  their  president  and  secretary,  the 
members  of  the  House  standing  to  receive  them. 
Upon  reaching  the  desk  the  president,  Mr.  Ferry,  in 
accordance  with  the  law,  took  the  speaker's  chair; 
Mr.  Randall,  the  speaker,  occupied  another  immedi 
ately  on  his  left;  the  senators  seated  them|eievj  in 
the  body  of  the  hall  on  the  right  of  the  chair ;  the 
representatives  and  visitors  filled  the  remaining  floor 
space ;  the  tellers,  —  Messrs.  Ingalls  and  Allison  for 
the  Senate  and  Messrs.  Cook  and  Stone  for  the  House 
—  the  secretary  of  the  Senate,  and  the  clerk  of  the 
House  took  seats  at  the  clerk's  desk ;  the  other  officers 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  223 

were  accommodated  in  front  of  the  clerk's  desk  and  on 
each  side  of  the  speaker's  platform. 1 

Mr.  Ferry  then  called  the  joint  session  to  order, 
and  the  historic  count  began.  The  votes  of  Alabama, 
Arkansas,  California,  Colorado,  Connecticut,  and  Del 
aware  were  declared  and  counted  without  special  in 
cident;  the  proceedings  were  somewhat  tedious,  and 
there  was  considerable  talk  and  confusion  on  the  floor 
and  in  the  galleries.  But  as  the  count  of  the  votes  of 
Delaware  was  completed  a  hush  fell  over  the  hall, 
and  there  was  a  great  craning  of  necks  in  the  galleries. 
Florida  had  been  reached. 

From  Florida  there  were  three  certificates :  one  from 
the  Hayes  electors,  regular  in  form  because  certified 
by  Governor  Stearns  and  Secretary  of  State  McLin; 
one  from  the  Tilden  electors,  dated  December  6th, 
but  confessedly  irregular  in  form,  though  certified  by 
Attorney-General  Cocke;  one  from  the  same  Demo 
cratic  electors,  dated  January  26th,  1877,  certified  by 
the  new  governor,  Drew,  and  containing  a  copy  of 
the  act  of  January  I7th,  the  certificate  of  the  state 
canvassers  who  recanvassed  the  vote  under  that  act 
and  a  reference,  in  the  governor's  certificate,  to  the 
judgment  of  the  circuit  court  in  the  quo  warranto  pro 
ceedings  against  the  Hayes  electors.  2 

Objections  were  at  once  filed  against  each  of  the 
certificates,  and  the  Democrats  also  filed  a  special  ob 
jection  against  the  reception  of  the  vote  of  F.  C. 


1  Proceedings,    pp.    6-9. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   10-24. 


224  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Humphreys,  one  of  the  Hayes  electors,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  a  Federal  office-holder,  and  was  therefore 
ineligible.  The  certificates,  objections,  and  all  other 
papers  were  then,  in  accordance  with  the  law,  referred 
to  the  Electoral  Commission. 1 

That  tribunal  had  already  met  and  organized,  with 
the  venerable  Justice  Clifford,  the  justice  "longest  in 
commission"  as  president. 2  The  sessions  were  held 
in  the  room  usually  occupied  by  the  supreme  court. 
For  the  sake  of  the  future  historian  the  spectacle  pre 
sented  by  the  Commission  should  have  been  a  splen 
did  one,  but  it  was  not.  If  the  official  painting,  which 
now  hangs  in  the  Capitol,  be  a  true  representation,  the 
sight  was  far  from  imposing.  3  We  are  distinctly  told 
by  an  eye-witness  that  the  proceedings  furnished  little 
that  was  "unusual,  unique,  picturesque,  or  dramatic."  4 
Attempted  descriptions  along  the  line  of  Macaulay's 
passage  on  the  trial  of  Hastings  are  therefore  mislead 
ing.  5  To  be  sure,  the  room  itself  was  the  same  which, 
as  the  Senate  chamber  of  other  days,  had  "resounded 
with  the  eloquence  of  Clay  and  of  Webster ;"  but  it 
was  much  too  small  for  the  audience  which  now  filled 
it,  and  even  the  bench  was  insufficient  to  accommodate 
all  of  the  fifteen  judges.  6 

1  For  the  objections  see  Proceedings,   pp.   24-28. 

2  Ibid,  pp.    8-9.     The   law   so   provided. 

3  Painted  by  Mrs.  C.  Adele  Fassett,  who  made  sketches  during 
the   sessions   and    later   secured    sittings    from   most    of   the   dis 
tinguished  participants.     For  an   account   of  the  painting  and  a 
'key"   see  Magazine  of  American  History,  XXVII,  pp.   81-97. 

4  Times  of  Feb.  6th. 

5  Herald  of  Feb.   llth. 

6  Owing  to  lack  of  lighting  facilities  in  the  court  room,  aome 
of  the  evening  sessions  were  held  in  the  Senate  chamber. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  225 

The  proceedings  were  more  notable  for  the  eminent 
character  of  the  participants  than  for  any  dramatic 
or  spectacular  interest.  All  the  members  of  the  Com 
mission  were  men  of  broad  experience  and  high  legal 
attainments.  Of  the  five  from  the  Senate,  two,  Thur- 
man  and  Edmunds,  were  unsurpassed  as  constitutional 
lawyers;  a  third,  Bayard,  was  to  be  a  secretary  of 
state,  a  minister  to  England,  and  several  times  a  for 
midable  candidate  for  the  Presidential  nomination; 
while  a  fourth,  Morton,  had  approved  himself  the 
greatest  of  "war  governors,"  x  and  now,  though  par 
tially  paralyzed,  possessed  a  will  which  triumphed  over 
all  the  infirmities  of  the  body  and  made  him  one  of  the 
most  feared  leaders  of  his  party.  Of  those  from  the 
House,  one  was  soon  to  be  honored  with  the  exalted 
position  for  which  the  contest  was  now  raging;  while 
another,  who  has  but  recently  gone  from  among  us, 
was  a  man  who  in  spotless  integrity  and  singleness  of 
devotion  to  his  country's  service  was  the  peer  of  any 
man  who  has  ever  represented  the  great  state  of  Mas 
sachusetts. 

The  counsel  who  appeared  for  the  contending  parties 
were  scarcely  less  eminent  than  the  Commission  itself. 
Among  those  for  the  Democrats  were  Charles  O'Con- 
or,  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  John  A.  Campbell,  once  asso 
ciate  justice  of  the  supreme  court,  ex-Senator  Lyman 
Trumbull  of  Illinois,  William  C.  Whitney  of  New 
York,  and  Richard  T.  Merrick  of  Washington.  Fore 
most  among  the  Republican  counsel  was  the  astute 

1  So  thought  Stanton  and  Chase. — Letter  of  Chase  to  Morton 
given  by  Foulke,  I.  p.  456.  See  also  Hoar,  II,  p.  75. 


226  The  Hayes-Tilden 

and  learned  William  M.  Evarts,  leader  of  the  New 
York  bar,  defender  of  Andrew  Johnson,  ex-attorney- 
general,  and  soon  to  be  secretary  of  state.  He  was 
ably  assisted  by  Edward  M.  Stoughton  of  New  York 
and  by  Samuel  Shellabarger,  the  personal  representa 
tive  of  Hayes,  and  by  Stanley  Matthews  of  Ohio. 
Some  of  the  best  known  of  the  senators  and  represen 
tatives  including  Montgomery  Blair,  J.  Randolph 
Tucker,  George  W.  McCrary,  David  Dudley  Field, 
John  A.  Kasson,  and  William  Lawrence,  appeared  be 
fore  the  Commission  as  objectors  to  the  various  cer 
tificates. 

The  objections  to  the  Florida  certificates  were  heard 
on  the  2d.  The  Democratic  objections  were  pre 
sented  by  David  Dudley  Field  of  New  York  and  by  J. 
Randolph  Tucker  of  Virginia.  Mr.  Field,  who  was 
the  first  to  speak,  asserted  that  in  a  peaceful  and 
orderly  election  the  Tilden  electors  had  been  chosen 
by  a  majority  of  the  votes,  but  that  through  a  "sort 
of  jugglery"  a  false  certificate  signed  by  the  former 
governor  of  the  state  had  been  sent  up  by  the  Re 
publican  candidates.  He  then  entered  upon  a  detailed 
account  of  the  sharp  practices  resorted  to  by  the  Re 
publican  canvassing  officers  in  Baker  county  and 
charged  that  the  returning  board  had  manufactured 
a  majority  for  Hayes.  He  also  laid  stress  upon  the 
quo  ivarranto  proceedings  which  had  resulted  in  a  de 
cree  by  a  district  court  in  favor  of  the  Tilden  electors, 
and  told  of  the  later  canvass  of  votes  by  the  new  re 
turning  board  created  for  the  purpose  by  the  new  legis- 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  227 

lature.  The  certificate  of  Governor  Stearns,  he  ar 
gued,  formed  no  barrier  against  the  investigation  of 
the  facts  by  the  Commission,  for  the  governor's  cer 
tification  was  done  in  accordance  with  a  Federal  law 
which  did  not  provide  that  his  certificate  should  be 
conclusive  evidence.  The  Commission  could,  there 
fore,  go  behind  the  certificate  and  overthrow  the 
"fraud." l  Mr.  Tucker,  the  other  objector,  pointed 
out  that  the  powers  of  the  tribunal,  in  accordance 
with  the  act  creating  it,  were  exactly  those  of  the  two 
houses  of  Congress ;  these  powers,  he  thought,  "are 
not  less  than  the  powers  of  a  court  upon  a  quo  war- 
ranto  proceeding."  In  every  appointment  or  election, 
he  argued,  there  are  two  elements :  first,  the  elective 
function,  and  second,  the  determining  function. 
Whenever  the  determining  authority  acts  illegally  such 
action  must  be  set  aside.  The  determining  authority 
in  Florida  had  so  acted,  and  its  action  must  be  set 
aside  by  the  Commission.  Since  the  canvass  made  by 
the  returning  board  had  been  declared  illegal  by  a 
court  in  quo  ivarranto  proceedings,  the  judgment  of 
the  court  must  be  accepted  as  final.  He  closed  by 
stating  the  Democratic  objection  to  the  vote  of  the 
alleged  ineligible  Republican  elector.  2 

Representatives  Kasson  and  McCrary  appeared  as 
the  Republican  objectors. 3  The  certificate  sent  by 
the  Hayes  electors,  argued  Mr.  Kasson,  was  the  only 
regular  one.  The  second  was  irregular,  because 

1  Proceedings,  pp.  35-45. 

2  /bid,  pp.   45-52. 

3  For  their  respective  speeches  see  Ibid,  pp.  54-64  and  64-72. 


228  The  Hayes-Tilden 

''signed  by  an  officer  not  recognized  by  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  nor  by  the  statutes  of  Florida  as 
a  certifying  officer."  The  third  was  "still  more  ex 
traordinary  ....  a  certificate  which  is  thor 
oughly  ex  post  facto,  certified  by  an  officer  not  in  ex 
istence  until  the  functions  of  the  office  had  been  ex 
hausted  ;  a  certificate  which  recites  or  refers  to  poster 
ior  proceedings  in  a  subordinate  court  and  in  a  super 
ior  state  court,  the  latter  expressly  excluding  the 
electoral  question ;  a  certificate  which  is  accompanied 
by  that  sort  of  a  return  which  a  canvassing  board 
might  under  some  circumstances  report  to  the  state 
officers,  but  which  has  never  been  sent  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  or  to  the  President  of  the  Senate 
for  their  consideration  in  the  hundred  years  in  which 
we  have  been  a  Republic."  The  Republicans  were 
prepared  to  meet  the  charges  of  fraud  that  had  been 
brought.  The  Democratic  objectors  had  spoken  of 
Baker  county  but  had  neglected  to  mention  the  train- 
load  of  non-resident  Democrats  who  had  voted  in 
Alachua  county.  He  denied,  however,  that  the  Com 
mission  had  power  to  investigate  such  matters ;  it  must 
accept  the  regular  return  certified  by  the  state  author 
ities  ;  it  could  not  go  behind  the  action  of  the  state 
canvassers  because  the  Constitution  provides  that  each 
state  shall  appoint  its  electors  "in  such  manner  as  the 
legislature  thereof  may  direct."  Mr.  McCrary,  in 
his  speech,  attacked  the  theory  put  forward  by  his  op 
ponents  that  the  Commission  possessed  the  judicial 
powers  attributed  to  it  by  his  opponents.  He  held 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  229 

also  that  the  Republican  electors,  under  color  of  title, 
had  met  and  voted  on  the  6th  of  December,  and  had 
thereupon  become  functi  officio;  all  subsequent  pro 
ceedings  were  of  no  effect;  the  acts  of  the  electors, 
in  accordance  with  the  law  of  officers,  must  stand, 
even  though  it  be  admitted  for  the  sake  of  argument 
that  they  were  only  officers  de  facto  and  not  de  jure. 
While  contending  that  the  Commission  should  not  take 
cognizance  of  the  proceedings  in  quo  warranto,  he  said 
that  if  the  Commission  did  decide  to  do  so,  the  Repub 
licans  were  prepared  to  show  that  an  appeal  to  a 
higher  court  was  then  pending.  As  regarded  the  case 
of  the  alleged  ineligible  elector,  Humphreys,  he 
stated  that  it  could  be  easily  proven  that  Mr.  Hum 
phreys  had  resigned  the  office  before  the  election;  he 
objected,  however,  to  the  subject  coming  before  the 
Commission  because  there  were  "no  papers  accom 
panying  any  of  the  votes,  or  papers  purporting  to  be 
votes,"  that  related  to  the  matter. 

When  the  counsel  began  their  arguments  on  the  fol 
lowing  day,  this  vital  question  of  the  reception  of  evi 
dence  at  once  arose,  and  as  it  had  to  'be  decided  before 
any  progress  could  be  made,  the  whole  attention  of  the 
Commission  was  turned  to  it.  In  their  arguments  *  the 
Democratic  advocates  showed  themselves,  for  once, 
strangely  indifferent  to  the  sphere  of  state  powers. 
The  evidence  they  wished  to  bring  in  was  of  two 

1  For  the  Democratic  arguments  see  Proceedings,  pp.  64-101, 
124-136.     For    their    briefs    see    pp.     729-774.     None    of    these 
briefs  was   devoted   entirely  to   this  matter  of  the   reception  of 
evidence,  but  all  touched  upon  it. 
16 


230  The  Hayes-Tilden 

kinds:  first,  that  which  was  contained  in  the  various 
certificates   received  from  Florida;  and,  second,  ex 
trinsic  evidence  taken  by  the  investigating  committee 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  evidence  to  be 
taken  by  the  Commission  itself.     The  certificate  of  the 
governor,   argued  they,   was   not  conclusive;   it  was 
merely  required  by  a  Federal  statute,  which  must  have 
been    passed    as    a    precautionary    measure,    for    the 
Constitution    itself    provides    for   the    return    by    the 
electors  themselves.     Under  the  circumstances  of  the 
present  case  the  Commission  must  make  an  investiga 
tion    in    order   to    determine    what   votes    should   be 
counted ;  "any  legitimate  evidence  going  to  determine 
the  true  votes  is,"  they  held,  "proper  and  competent 
evidence  before  this  tribunal."     They  pointed  out  that 
in  1873  a  Senate  committee  had  gone  behind  the  cer 
tificate  of  the  governor  of  Louisiana,  had  found  that 
the  returns  "had  never  been  counted  by  anybody  hav 
ing  authority  to  count  them,"  and  that  -with  this  report 
before  them  Congress  had  excluded  the  vote  of  the 
state.     This  precedent,  the  Democrats  contended,  was 
sufficient  proof  of  the  right  of  Congress  and  the  Com 
mission  to  receive  both  kinds  of  evidence;  but  they 
said  they  would,  in  the  case  of  Florida,  ask  the  recep 
tion  of  no  extrinsic  evidence  save  upon  the  rejection 
of  certain  returns  by  the  returning  board  and  upon  the 
ineligibility  of  Mr.  Humphreys.     They  suggested  that 
the  Republicans  would  need  to  offer  in  rebuttal  no 
extrinsic  evidence  save  upon  these  matters  and  upon 
the  fact  of  the  appeal  from  the  decision  in  quo  war- 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  231 

ranto.  This  was  intended  to  meet  the  Republican 
argument  that,  aside  from  constitutional  reasons,  the 
reception  of  extrinsic  evidence  would  from  the  very 
vastness  of  the  labor  involved  be  impracticable. 

The  Republican  advocates,  on  their  part,  advanced 
"strict  construction"  views  which  were  quite  as  un 
wonted  as  were  the  "loose  construction"  arguments 
put  forward  by  their  opponents. 1  With  admirable 
acumen  and  calculation  they  placed  themselves  square 
ly  upon  the  line  of  division  between  Federal  and 
state  powers.  They  accepted  the  position  so  painfully 
constructed  by  the  Democrats  on  the  question  of  the 
power  to  go  behind  the  governor's  certificate ;  this 
could  be  done,  said  they,  because  the  governor  acts 
in  that  matter  in  obedience  to  Federal  law  and  his 
action  is  therefore  reviewable  by  Federal  authority. 
But,  they  pointed  out,  this  does  not  apply  to  the  choice 
of  the  electors ;  that  is  a  matter  wholly  under  state 
control,  for  the  Constitution  expressly  declares  that 
electors  shall  be  appointed  by  each  state  "in  such 
manner  as  the  legislature  thereof  may  direct." 

Up  to  "the  completion  and  consummation  of  this 
appointment,"  argued  Matthews,  "the  state  alone 
acts.  That  last  act  completes  the  appointment,  and 
that  appointment  completed  and  finished  is  unchange 
able  except  by  state  authority  exerted  upon  that  act 
within  an  interval  of  time;  and  what  is  that?  Con 
gress,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  has 

1  For  the  Republican  arguments  see  Proceedings,  pp.  101- 
124  and  136-137. 


232  The  Hayes-Tilden 

had  reserved  to  it  control  in  certain  particulars  over 
this  appointment;  that  is  to  say,  it  may  designate  the 
day  on  which  the  appointment  may  be  made,  and  it 
shall  designate  the  day  on  which  the  electors  so  ap 
pointed  shall  deposit  their  ballots  for  President  and 
Vice-President.  In  that  interval  I  do  not  know  and 
I  do  not  care  to  discuss,  I  will  neither  deny  nor  af 
firm,  but  I  am  willing  to  admit,  any  and  everything 
that  may  be  claimed  on  the  other  side  as  t®  the  ex 
istence  of  state  authority  to  inquire  into  and  affect 
that  record."  But  he  contended  that  once  the  day 
had  passed  when  the  body  which  according  to  the 
forms  of  law  had  been  invested  with  the  apparent  title 
to  act  had  accomplished  the  purpose  for  which  it  had 
been  brought  into  being,  then  that  transaction,  so  far 
as  state  authority  was  concerned,  had  passed  beyond 
the  limits  of  its  control.  l 

In  case  of  conflicting  returns  Congress  might  in 
vestigate  to  see  which  one  was  the  true  one,  but  its 
investigation  must  stop  with  ascertaining  the  deter 
mination  reached  by  the  authority  empowered  by  state 
law  with  that  function.  Its  duty  was  merely  "to 
count  the  electoral  vote,  and  not  to  count  the  votes 
by  which  the  electors  are  elected."  To  attempt  to  do 
the  latter  would  not  only  be  unconstitutional  but  would 
involve  difficulties  which  would  be  insuperable. 

On  the  question  of  receiving  extraneous  proof  re 
garding  the  eligibility  of  electors  the  Republican  coun 
sel  held  that  while  Congress  had  power  to  make  a  law 


1  Proceedings,   p.    103. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  233 

providing  for  the  reception  of  such  proof,  there  was 
no  such  law  and  therefore  such  proof  must  not  be 
received.  The  injunction  against  appointing  persons 
holding  Federal  offices,  they  argued,  "does  not  exe 
cute  itself  under  the  Constitution,  and  if  unexecuted 
in  the  laws  of  the  state,  is  only  to  be  executed  by 
laws  of  Congress  providing  the  means  and  time  and 
place  for  proof  and  determination  on  the  fact  of  dis 
qualification."  1 

The  hearing  on  the  question  of  receiving  evidence 
was  concluded  on  the  afternoon  of  Monday,  Febru 
ary  6th.  The  Commission  reserved  its  decision  until 
the  following  Wednesday.  In  the  meantime  there 
was  great  impatience  in  Washington  and  elsewhere  to 
learn  what  stand  the  Commission  would  take,  for  upon 
that  stand  hinged,  it  was  believed  by  many,  the  final 
decision. 

Through  a  peculiar  misapprehension  the  Democrats 
believed  for  a  time  that  their  cause  was  won.  In  mak 
ing  up  his  mind,  Mr.  Bradley,  following  a  not  uncom 
mon  custom  among  jurists,  wrote  out  what  were  in 
effect  two  opinions  giving  the  arguments  on  both 
sides.  A  Democratic  member  learned  of  the  opin 
ion  giving  the  Democratic  arguments  and  inferred 
that  Justice  Bradley  was  siding  with  the  Democrats. 
The  joyful  news  was  carried  to  Mr.  Hewitt.  There 
was  jubilation  among  the  Democrats.  Bradley  was 
a  just  judge  —  a  veritable  "Daniel  come  to  judg 
ment."  But  hasty  inferences  are  apt  to  prove  mis- 

1  From   speech   by   Evarts,    Proceedings,    pp.    117-118. 


234  The  Hayes-Tilden 

leading.  On  the  following  day,  when  Justice  Miller 
moved,  "that  no  evidence  will  be  received  or  consid 
ered  by  the  Commission  which  was  not  submitted  to 
the  joint  convention  of  the  two  houses  by  the  presi 
dent  of  the  Senate  with  the  different  certificates,  ex 
cept  such  as  relates  to  the  eligibility  of  F.  C.  Hum 
phreys,  one  of  the  electors,"  Bradley  voted  with  the 
Republicans ;  and  the  order  was  carried  by  8  to  7. 1 
From  that  time  forward  Justice  Joseph  P.  Bradley 
was  in  the  eyes  of  Democrats  an  "unjust  judge,"  a 
"partisan,"  and  the  cry  went  forth  from  the  house 
tops  that  he  had  been  bribed.  To  give  color  to  the 
bribery  story,  it  was  alleged  that  on  the  night  prior  to 
the  decision  his  house  had  been  surrounded  by  the 
carriages  of  Republican  politicians  and  Pacific  Rail 
road  magnates,  and  that  as  a  result  of  "pressure" 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  at  this  time  he  had  changed 
his  views.  There  was  not  one  iota  of  proof  brought 
forward  in  support  of  the  charge,  but  Democratic 
newspapers  took  up  the  story,  and  Justice  Bradley's 
whole  after-life  was  embittered  by  it.  2 

Upon  one  question,  however,  namely  that  of  receiv 
ing  extraneous  evidence  relating  to  the  alleged  ineli- 

1  Proceedings,  pp.  138-139. 

2  The   New   York   Sun  was   especially  active  in  keeping  the 
story  alive.     See  Lewis,  Miscellaneous  Writings  of  the  Late  Hon. 
Joseph  P.  Bradley,  pp.   220-222,  for  a  letter  written  by  Bradley 
to  the  Newark  Daily  Advertiser  of  Sept.   5,  1877.     Bigelow,  Til- 
den,    II,    p.    95,    states    that   Tilden    told   him    that   he   had    been 
offered  the  vote  of  a  member  of  the  supreme  court   (presumably 
Bradley)     on    the    question    of    going    behind    the    returns    for 
$200,000.     If  there  was  such  an  offer,   it  was  made  by   one   of 
those    irresponsible    persons    who    were    so    active    just    then    in 
trying  to  engineer  corrupt  bargains  without  any  authority  from 
those  concerned. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  235 

gibility  of  Mr.  Humphreys,  Mr.  Bradley  voted  with 
the  Democrats.  On  the  following  day  the  evidence 
was  taken.  It  showed  conclusively  that  Mr.  Hum 
phreys  had  been  shipping  commissioner  of  the  port  of 
Pensacola,  but  that  on  the  24th  of  September  he  had 
sent  a  letter  of  resignation  to  the  Federal  circuit  judge, 
who  was  then  on  a  visit  to  Ohio.  The  resignation  had 
been  accepted  on  the  2d  of  October,  and  Mr.  Hum 
phreys  had  turned  over  the  books  and  records  to  the 
collector  of  customs  and  had  ceased  to  perform  the 
duties  of  the  office.  The  Democratic  counsel  did  not 
deny  these  facts ;  but  they  raised  the  technical  objec 
tion  that  the  resignation  was  not  valid  because  made, 
not  to  the  appointing  power,  the  circuit  court,  but  to 
the  absent  judge. 

In  the  final  hearing  upon  the  Florida  case  the  coun 
sel  for  both  parties  made  use  of  substantially  the  same 
arguments  that  have  already  been  set  forth.  17fThe 
Republicans  once  again  claimed  that  theirs  was  the 
only  regular  certificate ;  that  the  first  Democratic  cer 
tificate  was  confessedly  irregular ;  that  the  second  was 
"a  posthumous  certificate  of  a  post-mortem  action, 
never  proceeding  from  any  vital  or  living  body  of 
electors,  but  only  from  the  galvanic  agency  of  inter-  ' 
ested  party  purpose,  taking  effect  after  the  whole 
transaction  was  ended."  2  The  quo  warranto  proceed 
ings,  they  held,  were  not  before  the  Commission; 


1  For  the  final  arguments  on  both  sides  see  Proceedings,  pp. 
145-193.     See  also  Democratic  briefs  Nos.  2,   3,  and  4,  pp.   745- 
774. 

2  Evarts,  Hid,  p.   179. 


236  The  Hayes-Tilden 

even  if  they  were,  they  were  wholly  post  hoc 
and,  furthermore,  had  been  appealed  from.  If  such 
post  hoc  proceedings  were  to  be  of  any  effect, 
it  lay  in  the  power  of  any  partisan  nisi  prius 
court  to  reverse  an  election  and  even  to  un 
seat  a  President  after  he  was  inaugurated.  In  reply, 
the  Democrats  admitted  that  the  quo  warranto  had 
been  decided  after  the  electors  had  voted,  but  they 
claimed  that  service  had  been  made  before  the  act. 
The  Tilden  electors,  they  declared,  had  been  recog 
nized  by  all  the  departments  of  the  state  government  ; 
and  their  votes  must  be  received  and  counted. 

The  hearing  in  the  Florida  case  was  closed  on 
Thursday,  February  8th.  Next  day  the  Commission 
met  behind  closed  doors  and  argued  the  question  for 
many  hours.1  On  one  point,  namely  the  eligibility 
of  Mr.  Humphreys,  there  were  three  Democrats  — 
Thurman,  Bayard,  and  Clifford  —  who  were  willing 
to  take  the  Republican  view  ;  2  but  upon  every  other 
important  question  the  Commission  divided  on  strict 
party  lines.  And  on  strict  party  lines  the  Republicans 
had  a  majority  of  one.  By  a  vote  of  8  to  7  it  was 
therefore  ordered  that  the  four  electoral  votes  of  Flor 
ida  should  be  counted  for  Hayes  and  Wheeler.  3  The 
grounds  of  the  decision,  as  stated  in  the  report  to 
Congress,  were  as  follows: 


Each 

2  Ibid,  pp.   194,   871,   1059. 

3  Ibid,  pp.    195-198. 


OF 

UNIVERSITY 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  237 

"That  it  is  not  competent  under  the  Constitution  and 
the  law,  as  it  existed  at  the  date  of  the  passage  of 
said  act,  to  go  into  evidence  aliunde  the  papers  opened 
by  the  president  of  the  Senate  in  the  presence  of  the 
two  houses  to  prove  that  other  persons  than  those 
regularly  certified  to  by  the  governor  of  the  state  of 
Florida,  in  and  according  to  the  determination  and 
declaration  of  their  appointment  by  the  board  of  state 
canvassers  of  said  state  prior  to  the  time  required 
for  the  performance  of  their  duties,  had  been  ap 
pointed  electors,  or  by  counter-proof  to  show  that  they 
had  not,  and  that  all  proceedings  of  the  courts  or  acts 
of  the  legislature  or  of  the  executive  of  Florida  sub 
sequent  to  the  casting  of  the  votes  of  the  electors  on 
the  prescribed  day,  are  inadmissible  for  any  such  pur 
pose. 

"As  to  the  objection  made  to  the  eligibility  of  Mr. 
Humphreys,  the  Commission  is  of 'the  opinion  that, 
without  reference  to  the  question  of  the  effect  of  the 
vote  of  an  ineligible  elector,  the  evidence  does  not 
show  that  he  held  the  office  of  shipping-commissioner 
on  the  day  when  the  electors  were  appointed."  1 

When  the  report  of  the  Commission  was  read  in 
joint  session  on  Saturday,  February  loth,  Mr.  Field  at 
once  submitted  an  objection,  signed  by  the  requisite 
number  of  senators  and  representatives. 2  The  two 
houses  accordingly  separated  to  decide  upon  the  ob 
jection.  The  Senate  soon  decreed  by  44  to  25  that 
the  decision  should  stand.  3  But  in  the  House  the 
Democratic  majority  were  much  exercised  over  the 
decision ;  and  against  the  protests  of  the  Republicans, 

1  Proceedings,    p.    198. 

2  Ibid,   pp.    200-201. 

3  Record,  pp.   1473-1477. 


238  The  Hayes-Tilden 

a  recess  was  .taken  over  Sunday  in  order  that  the  Dem 
ocrats  might  have  more  time  for  deliberation. l  On 
Monday  some  of  the  more  indignant  members  irreg 
ularly  attempted  to  have  the  questions  resubmitted  to 
the  Commission.  2  Others  were  for  not  having  any 
thing  further  to  do  with  the  tribunal.  After  much 
denunciatory  talk  the  report  was  rejected  by  168  to 
103.  3  But,  as  the  act  provided  that  a  decision  should 
stand  unless  overruled  by  both  houses,  the  votes  of 
Florida  were,  when  the  joint  convention  reassembled, 
counted  for  Hayes.  4 

The  count  of  the  states  then  proceeded  unchal 
lenged  until  Louisiana  was  reached.  'From  Louisiana 
there  we*£  four  certificates,  or  papers  purporting  to  be 
such.  5  The  first  was  the  original  certificate  made  by 
the  Republican  electors  on  December  6th  and  certified 
by  Governor  Kellogg ;  only  one  copy  of  it  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  president  of  the  Senate,  for,  as  already 
explained,  the  copy  sent  by  messenger  had  been  carried 
back  to  Louisiana.  The  second,  of  which  there  were 
two  copies,  was  from  the  Tilden  "electors,"  and  was 
certified  by  "Governor"  McEnery.  The  third,  of 
which  there  were  also  two  copies,  was  the  antedated 
Republican  certificate,  in  which,  although  the  Demo 
crats  knew  it  not,  two  signatures  were  forged.  The 
fourth,  received  by  mail  only,  was  from  "John  Smith, 


1  Record,  p.    1487. 

2  A  resolution  to  that  effect  was  offered  by  Proctor  Knott. — 
pp.   1489-1490. 

3  Ibid,  p.   1502. 

4  Ibid,  p.    1503. 

5  Proceedings,  pp.   205-212. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  239 

bull-dozed  governor  of  Louisiana,"  certifying  that  the 
vote  of  Louisiana  had  been  cast  for  Peter  Cooper. 
This  certificate  was  suppressed,  but  its  announcement 
created  considerable  merriment,  and  the  Democrats 
later  claimed  that  it  had  purposely  been  sent  in  in 
order  to  distract  attention  from  the  Republican  cer 
tificates.  *  Three  objections  were  submitted  against 
the  Republican  certificates,  one  against  the  Democratic, 
and  the  whole  case  was  then  transferred  to  the  Com 
mission.  2 

The  objections  offered  to  the  Republican  returns 
before  the  Commission  were  many,  complicated,  and 
not  entirely  consistent  with  one  another.  3  It  was 
claimed  that  at  the  time  of  the  election  there  had  been 
no  law  "in  force  directing  the  manner  in  which  elec 
tors  for  said  state  should  be  appointed."  In  the  elec 
tion  which  had  taken  place  the  Democratic  electors 
had  received  a  majority  of  votes;  hence  "the  lists 
of  names  of  electors  made  and  certified  by  the  said 
William  P.  Kellogg,  claiming  to  be,  but  not  being, 
governor  of  said  state,  were  false."  The  canvass 
made  by  the  returning  board  was  illegal  and  void  — 
because  the  statutes  gave  that  body  no  power  to  can 
vass  the  vote  for  electors;  because  such  "statutes,  if 
construed  as  conferring  such  jurisdiction,  give  the  re 
turning  officers  power  to  appoint  electors,  and  are  void, 
as  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  which  requires 

1  H.  R.  R.  No.  140,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  p.  58. 

2  Proceedings,   pp.    212-217. 

3  For  the  written  objections  see  I&id,  pp.  212-216  ;  for  the  oral 
ones,  pp.   221-243. 


240  The  Hayes-Tilden 

that  electors  shall  be  appointed  by  the  state ;"  because 
the  board  had  no  right  to  exercise  discretionary 
powers;  because  the  board  consisted  of  but  four 
persons  instead  of  five,  as  the  law  provided; 
because  the  board  usurped  jurisdiction  in  cases  where 
protests  had  not  been  properly  filed ;  because  the  board 
illegally  and  fraudulently  changed  the  result ;  and  be 
cause  a  member  offered  to  receive  a  bribe.  The  votes 
of  A.  B.  Levissee  and  O.  H.  Brewster  were  of  no 
effect,  because  on  the  7th  of  November  both  were  Fed 
eral  office-holders  and  therefore  ineligible ;  the  votes  of 
Oscar  Joffrion,  J.  H.  Burch,  Morris  Marks,  and  W.  P. 
Kellogg  were  likewise  void  because  all  of  these  four 
persons  held  state  offices  and  were  ineligible  under 
state  law.  None  of  the  Republican  votes  should  be 
counted  because  at  the  time  of  the  appointment  of  the 
Republican  electors  the  state  did  not  have  a  repub 
lican  form  of  government. 

The  Republicans  brought  forward  no  such  compli 
cated  and  elaborate  list  of  objections  against  the  Dem 
ocratic  certificate.1  They  contented  themselves  with 
defending  their  own  certificates  and  with  pointing  out 
that  the  Tilden  electors  had  not  been  declared  elected 
by  any  state  authority,  that  McEnery,  who  certified 
their  vote,  was  not  governor,  for  Kellogg  was  the 
real  governor,  having  been  recognized  by  the  state 
authorities  and  by  every  department  of  the  Federal 
government.  2  While  asserting  that  the  Commission 


1  For  written   protest  see   Proceedings,   p.   217;   for  oral  ob- 
itions   see  pp.    243-261. 
2  Ibid,  pp.   244-246,    253-254. 


Disputed  Election  of  jSjd         241 

must  accept  the  returning  board's  decision  and  must 
not  attempt  to  investigate  the  conduct  of  the  election, 
the  Republican  objectors  took  time  to  reply  with  vigor 
to  the  Democratic  assertions  regarding  fraud.  Sen 
ator  Howe,  who  had  been  one  of  the  Senate  investi 
gating  committee,  vividly  described  the  intimidation  in 
some  of  the  parishes.  There  was,  he  admitted,  in  re 
ply  to  a  statement  made  by  one  of  his  opponents, 
"more  than  one  foul  stream  to  be  found  in  the  .state 
of  Louisiana.  Coming  right  from  .that  state,  I  know 
of  other  and  larger  streams  which  are  not  merely 
dirty  but  are  very  bloody.  I  would  be  glad  if  in  this 
[tribunal  or  in  any  there  was  power  to  say  that  only 
pure  water  should  run  anywhere ;  but  the  power  does 
not  reside  in  any  human  tribunal.  I  want  your 
streams  all  purified  as  soon  as  it  can  be  done.  If  you 
can  aid  in  that  direction,  cleanse  the  bloody  before  you 
attempt  the  muddy  -streams."1 

As  in  Florida,  the  real  struggle  was  over  the  admis 
sion  of  evidence.  The  matter  was  again  debated  at 
great  length  ;2  Democratic  offers  to  prove  their  con 
tentions  were  many  and  insistent;  but  again  the  ma 
jority  of  the  Commission  refused  to  trench  upon  the 
domain  of  state  powers  by  examining  into  such  mat 
ters  as  the  proceedings  of  the  returning  board  and 
the  ineligibility  of  electors  holding  state  offices. 
Upon  the  other  questions,  such  as  whether  the  board 
was  a  lawful  agent  of  the  state,  whether  the  vacancy 


1  Proceedings,  p.  261. 

2  For  the  arguments  in  thts  case  see  Ibid,  pp.  261-415;  for  the  Dem 
ocratic  briefs  see  pp.  772-778. 


242  The  Hayes-Til  den 

vitiated  its  proceedings,  and  whether  any  of  the  elec 
tors   were  ineligible  under  the  Federal   Constitution, 
the  Republcans  were  on  tolerably  firm  ground.     The 
law  did  provide  for  the  returning  board  and  gave  it 
power  over  "all  elections  held  in  the  state;"  the  two 
electors  who  had  held  Federal  offices  had  not  claimed 
to  vote  by  virtue  of  having  been  elected  on  Novem 
ber  7th  but  by  virtue  of  appointment  by  the  college 
on  December  6th  after  they  had  removed  their  dis 
qualifications  by  resigning;  lastly,  on  the  question  of 
the  effect  of  the  vacancy  in  the  board,  one  opinon 
could  be  defended  about  as  successfully  as  the  other.1 
On  the  1 6th  the  Commission  met  in  secret  session 
to  make  its  decision.     After  debate  a  great  variety  of 
resolutions  —  to  admit  evidence  showing  that  the  re 
turning  .board  was  unconstitutional,  to  admit  evidence 
to  prove  that  the  board  was  not  legally  constituted, 
to  receive  testimony  on  the  fraudulent  acts  of  the  re 
turning  board,  and  even  to  reject  all  the  votes  from 
Louisiana  —  were  offered  by    the    desperate    Demo 
cratic  members.     All  were  relentlessly  voted  down  by 
8    to    7.2-    Then    the    deciding    vote  was  taken  on  a 
resolution  introduced  by  Senator  Morton.       Morton 
had  been   informed   by   Kellogg  that  -something  was 
wrong  with   certificate  No.   3,   so  he  was  careful   in 
his  resolution  to  stipulate  that  the  votes  certified  in 


1  Ii\ifac*,'  the-  Republicans  had  slightly  the  stronger  position  be 
cause  of  the  decisions  of  the  state  supreme  court  referred  to  above,  pp. 
115-116. 

LFor  a11  these  resolutions  with  the  votes  see  Proceedings,  pp. 


41G-423. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  243 

No.  i  should  be  counted. 1  The  resolution  was  carried 
by  the  usual  vote  of  8  to  7.  The  Commission  ex 
plained  its  action  to  Congress  as  follows: 

"The  brief  ground  of  this  decision  is  that  it  appears, 
upon  such  evidence  as  by  the  Constitution  and  the  law 
named  in  said  act  of  Congress  is  competent  and  per 
tinent  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject,  that  the 
before  mentioned  electors  appear  to  have  been  lawfully 
appointed  such  electors  of  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent  of  the  United  States  for  the  term  beginning 
March  4th,  A.  D.  1877,  of  the  state  of  Louisiana, 
and  that  they  voted  as  such  at  the  time  and  in  the  man 
ner  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  law. 

"And  the  Commission  has  by  a  majority  of  votes  de 
cided,  and  does  hereby  decide,  that  it  is  not  competent, 
under  the  Constitution  and  the  law  as  it  existed  at 
the  date  of  the  passage  of  said  act,  to  go'  into  evidence 
aliunde  the  papers  opened  by  the  president  of  the 
Senate  in  the  presence  of  the  two  houses  to  prove 
that  other  persons  than  those  regularly  certified  to 
by  the  governor  of  the  state  of  Jx)uisiana,  on  and 
according  to  the  determination  and  declaration  of  their 
appointment  by  the  returning  officers  for  elections  in 
the  said  state  prior  to  the  time  required  for  the  per 
formance  of  their  duties,  had  been  appointed  electors, 
or  by  counter-proof  to  show  that  they  had  not,  or  that 
the  determination  of  the  said  returning  officers  was  not 
in  accordance  with  the  truth  and  the  fact,  the  Com 
mission  by  a  majority  of  votes  being  of  opinion  that 
it  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  two  houses 
of  Congress  assembled  to  count  the  votes  for  Presi- 


1   Foulke,  Morton,  II,  p.  470  ;  H.  R.  R.  No.  160,  45th  Cong.  3d 
Sess.,  p.  60. 


244  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

dent  and  Vice-President  to  enter  upon  a  trial  of  such 
question. 

"The  Commission  by  a  majority  of  votes  is  also  of 
opinion  that  it  is  not  competent  to  prove  that  any  of 
said  persons  so  appointed  electors  as  aforesaid  held 
an  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United  States  at 
the  time  when  they  were  appointed,  or  that  they 
were  ineligible  under  the  laws  of  the  state,  or  any 
other  matter  offered  to  be  proved  aliunde  the  said 
certificates  and  papers. 

"The  Commission  is  also  of  opinion  by  a  majority  of 
votes  that  the  returning  officers  of  the  election  who 
canvassed  the  votes  at  the  election  for  electors  in 
Louisiana  were  a  legally-constituted  body,  by  virtue  of 
a  constitutional  law,  and  that  a  vacancy  in"  said  body 
did  not  vitiate  its  proceedings."  l 

Owing  to  a  dilatory  recess  taken  by  the  House 
against  the  protests  of  the  Republican  members,  it 
was  not  until  Monday,  February  igth,  that  the  joint 
session  convened  and  received  the  report.  The  read 
ing  of  the  report  was  not  greeted  with  many  cheers 
from  the  Democrats.  An  elaborate  objection,  suffi 
cient  to  fill  pages  426  to  438  of  the  Proceedings,  was 
at  once  presented  by  General  Gibson  of  Louisiana,  and 
shorter  ones  were  offered  by  Senator  Wallace  and 
Representative  Cochrane. 2  The  two  houses  then 
separated  in  order  to  deliberate  and  decide  upon  the 
objections. 

From  the  speeches  in  the  debates  which  followed,  it 

1  Proceedings,    p.    422.     For    Bradley's    opinion    on    the    con 
stitutionality   of  the  board   see  pp.   1028   et   seq.     There  was  no 
inconsistency  in  passing  upon  this  point.     The  Commission  nat 
urally  had  the  power  to  ascertain  whether  the  returning  board 
was  the  legal  agent  of  the  state. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  439-440. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  245 

is  easy  to  infer  that  the  Democrats  had  lost  much  of 
their  pristine  enthusiasm  for  the  Electoral  Commis 
sion.  In  the  Senate  Mr.  Maxey  declared  that  "the 
judgment  in  effect  exalts  fraud,  degrades  justice,  and 
consigns  truth  to  the  dungeon."1  "Deep  indeed," 
said  Bayard,  "is  my  sorrow  and  poignant  my  disap 
pointment.  I  mourn  my  failure  for  my  country's 
sake ;  for  it  seems  to  me  that  not  only  does  this 
decision  of  these  eight  members  destroy  and  level  in 
the  dust  the  essential  safeguards  of  the  Constitution, 
intended  to  surround  and  protect  the  election  of  the 
Chief  Magistrate  of  this  Union,  but  it  announces  to 
the  people  of  this  land  that  truth  and  justice,  honesty 
and  morality,  are  no  longer  the  essential  bases  of  their 
political  power."2  In  arguing  that  the  Commission 
ought  to  have  received  evidence,  Senator  Wallace 
pointed  out  that  one  argument  made  by  Morton,  Gar- 
field,  and  other  Republicans  against  the  bill  had  been 
that  it  might  be  interpreted  as  conferring  power  to  go 
behind  the  returns.  3 

The  decision  did  not,  however,  lack  defenders  among 
the  Republican  senators.  Boutwell  suggested  that 
the  opinion  of  the  Republican  "eight"  was  entitled  to 
at  least  as  much  weight  as  that  of  the  Democratic 
"seven,"  and  expressed  confidence  that  the  people 
would  accept  the  award.4  "Mr.  President,"  ex 
claimed  Sherman,  "a  good  deal  is  said  about  fraud, 

1  Record,  p.   1675. 

2  Ibid,    p.    1678. 

3  Ibid,  p.    1679. 

4  Ibid,  p.    1681. 


246  The  Hayes-Tilden 

fraud,  fraud  —  fraud  and  perjury,  and  wrong.  Why, 
sir,  if  you  go  behind  the  returns  in  Louisiana,  the  case 
is  stronger  for  the  Republicans  than  upon  the  face 
of  the  returns.  What  do  you  find  there?  Crime, 

murder,  violence,  that  is  what  you  find I  say 

now,  as  I  said  two  months  ago,  that,  while  there  may 
have  been  irregularities,  while  there  may  have  been  a 
non-observance  of  some  directory  laws,  yet  the  sub 
stantial  right  was  arrived  at  by  the  action  of  the 
returning  board."  1 

None  of  the  speeches  made  on  either  side  had  any 
effect  on  the  vote.  After  two  hours  of  debate  the 
decision  was  concurred  in  by  the  Senate  by  41  to  28.  2 

In  the  House  the  waves  of  Democratic  declamation 
and  vituperation  ran  even  higher  than  in  the  Senate. 
The  Democrats  were,  as  Mr.  McMahon  admitted, 3 
almost  without  hope,  and  they  sought  what  little  con 
solation  they  could  find  in  flaying  the  wicked  "eight." 
If,  said  New  of  Indiana,  no  evidence  was  to  be  re 
ceived,  what  was  the  use  of  these  many  thick  volumes 
of  reports  made  by  investigating  committees  and  "vis 
iting  statesmen  ?"  4  There  was  much  talk  about  the 
"ten  thousand  sovereign  voters"  who  had  been  dis 
franchised  by  the  returning  board.  5  Solemn  warnings 
were  given  of  the  terrible  wrath  which  an  outraged 
nation  would  visit  upon  the  party  which  upheld  such 
fraud.  "There  is  vet  much  to  live  for  in  this  rough 


1  Record,  p.  1677. 

2  Proceedings,    p.    440. 

3  Record,  p.   1688. 

4  Ibid,   p.    1685. 

5  Ibid,   1701. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  247 

world,"  said  Watterson,  that  fiery  editor  whose  dream 
of  "a  hundred  thousand"  had  now  been  supplanted  by 
the  dream  of  a  revanche,  "and  among  the  rest  that  day 
of  reckoning,  dies  irae,  dies  ilia, 

"When  the  dark  shall  be  light, 
"And  the  wrong  be  made  right."1 

"Ah,"  cried  the  gentleman  so  justly  famous  for  his 
description  of  a  sunset,  "they  called  in  the  ermine  to 
help  them.  The  ermine  is  a  little  animal.  It  is  an 
emblem  of  purity;  it  would  rather  be  caught  than  be 
bedraggled  in  the  mire.  Hunters  put  mud  around  its 
haunt  to  catch  it.  But  where  is  the  ermine  now.  Ah ! 
the  fox  has  become  the  ermine.  But  no  cunning,  no 
craft,  no  human  law,  no  divine  law,  can  ever  condone 
fraud.  All  codes  and  the  histories  of  all  nations  cry 
out  against  it.  Crime  cannot  breed  crime  forever. 
Ask  the  people  of  this  country.  Fraud  is  to  them  an 
endless  offense.  I  was  about,  Mr.  Speaker,  before 
the  hammer  fell,  to  refer  to  the  holy  writ,  so  that 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  may  have  time  for  repent 
ance.  With  permission  of  the  House,  I  will  read 
from  Psalms,  xciv,  20:  'Shall  the  throne  of  iniquity 
have  fellowship  with  thee,  which  frameth  mischief  by 
a  law?'" 

MR.  KELLEY. — I  object. 

MR.  Cox. — The  Bible  is  aliunde  with  these  gen 
tlemen.  2 


1  Record,  p.   1690. 

2  As  quoted  in  Three  Decades  of  Federal  Legislation,  p.  659. 


248  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Two  Republicans  of  the  House,  —  Pierce  and  Prof. 
Seelye,  both  of  Massachusetts,  —  while  not  accepting 
the  Democratic  view,  refused  to  vote  with  their  party 
on  the  Louisiana  decision.  Pierce  beHeved  that  the 
evidence  offered  should  have  been  received.  In  his 
opinion,  the  evidence  collected  was  such  as  to  render 
^necessary  the  exclusion  of  the  state  from  participation 
in  the  Presidential  election;  there  was,  he  declared, 
more  ground  for  such  action  than  there  had  been  in 
1872. 1  Prof.  Seelye  said  that  the  Commission  had 
unquestionably  "applied  the  Constitution  and  the  laws 
to  the  question ;"  but  he  feared  that  a  strict  and  accu 
rate  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  would,  under 
the  attending  circumstances,  imperil  the  vote  of  the 
future.  "It  seems  to  me  perfectly  clear,"  said  he,  in  a 
speech  which  received  the  closest  attention,  "that  the 
charges  made  by  each  side  against  the  other  are  in  the 
main  true.  No  facts  were  ever  proved  more  conclu 
sively  than  the  fraud  and  corruption  charged  on  the 
one  side  and  the  intimidation  and  cruelty  charged  on 
the  other.  Which  of  the  two  sides  went  the  further 
would  be  very  hard  to  say.  The  corruption  of  the 
one  side  seems  as  heinous  as  the  cruelty  of  the  other 
side  is  horrible,  and  on  both  sides  there  does  not  seem 
to  be  any  limit  to  the  extent  they  went,  save  only 
where  the  necessities  of  the  case  did  not  permit  or  the 
requirements  of  the  case  did  not  call  for  any  more. 
I  find  it  therefore  quite  impossible  to  say  which  of  the 
two  sets  of  electors  coming  up  here  with  their  certifi- 

1  Record,  p.  1701.     Pierce  later  became  an  ardent  Democrat. 
— Hoar,    Autobiography   of   Seventy   Tears,    I,   p.    370. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  249 

cates  voices  the  true  will  of  the  people  of  Louisiana 
in  the  late  election,  and  therefore  equally  beyond  my 
power  to  assent  to  the  propriety  of  counting  either. 
....  Granted  that  the  decision  reached  is  fairly  with 
in  the  bond ;  yet  what  if  the  pound  of  flesh  cannot  be 
taken  without  its  drop  of  blood  ?" l 

The  other  House  Republicans  stood  by  the  decision. 
At  heart  they  doubtless  believed  with  Mr.  Crapo2 
that  the  returning  'board  of  Louisiana  was  a  suspicious 
body,  but  thought  that  the  rifle-clubs  of  Ouachita  and 
elsewhere  were  equally  so,  and  as  the  rifle-clubs  had 
been  the  original  offenders,  decided  that  the  acts  of 
the  returning"  board  formed  an  equitable  set-off,  and 
hence  declined  to  give  way  and  allow  violence  and 
murder  to  be  rewarded.  To  the  Democratic  denuncia 
tions  of  fraud  they  replied  with  accounts  of  intimida 
tion  and  talk  of  Oregon  cipher  telegrams.  Some  of 
their  speeches  were  quite  as  denunciatory  as  any  made 
by  their  opponents.  One  member  declared  that  the 
Democrats  had  started  out  in  their  campaign  for  the 
"Grand  Fraud  of  Gramercy  Park"  with  "the  impres 
sion  that  they  could  buy  every  man  they  could  not 
frighten  or  delude."  3 

Uipon  the  conclusion  of  the  debate  the  House  re 
jected  the  decision  by  173  to  99.  But,  as  the  Senate 
had  accepted  it,  the  eight  votes  of  Louisiana  were 
counted  for  Hayes  and  Wheeler. 4 


1  Record,   p.    1685. 

2  Ibid.  p.    1689. 

3  Ibid,   p.    1686. 

4  Proceedings,   p.   441. 


250  The  Hayes-Tilden 

The  count  then  proceeded  unchallenged  until  Mich 
igan  was  reached.  From  Michigan  but  one  return 
had  been  received,  but  objection  was  offered  by  Repre 
sentative  Tucker  to  counting  the  vote  of  one  of  the 
electors  of  that  state. 1  The  grounds  of  the  objection 
were,  however,  so  slight  that  after  deliberation  the 
houses  concurred  in  receiving  the  vote.  An  equally 
baseless  objection  was  submitted  to  the  vote  of  one  of 
the  Nevada  electors,  but  again  both  houses  refused  to 
sustain  the  objection.  2 

At  last  Oregon  was  reached.  From  that  state  there 
were  two  certificates :  One  from  the  Republican 
electors,  Cartwright,  Watts,  and  Odell ;  the  other  from 
Cronin,  Miller,  and  Parker.  3  The  first  was  not  certi 
fied  by  the  governor,  but  it  did  contain  certified  copies 
of  the  canvass  of  votes,  furnished  by  the  secretary  of 
state,  together  with  a  statement  of  the  resignation  of 
Watts  from  the  college  and  his  subsequent  re-appoint 
ment.  The  one  made  by  Cronin  et  al.  contained  the 
governor's  certificate,  attested  by  the  secretary  of 
state ;  this  certificate  stated  that  "at  a  genera!  election 
held  in  the  said  state  on  the  7th  day  of  November,  A. 
D.  1876,  William  H.  Odell  received  15,206  votes,  John 
C.  Cartwright  received  15,214  votes,  E.  A.  Cronin 
received  14,157  votes  for  electors  of  President  and 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States ;  being  the  high 
est  number  of  votes  cast  at  said  election  for  persons 
eligible,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 


1  Proceedings,    pp.    442-446. 

2  /bid,  pp.   446-454. 

3  Ibid,  pp.    454-460. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  251 

to  be  appointed  electors  of  President  and  Vice-Presi 
dent."  Two  objections  were  submitted  against  the 
Cronin  certificate  and  one  against  the  Republican 
certificate. 1  The  case  was  therefore  referred  to  the 
Commission. 

The  Democratic  contention2  in  the  Oregon  case 
started  with  the  premise  that  since  Postmaster  Watts 
had  been  ineligible  the  votes  cast  for  him  had  been 
null  and  void,  and  Cronin,  his  opponent  next  highest 
on  the  list,  had  been  elected.  The  governor,  after  a 
hearing,  had  so  declared,  and  with  the  secretary  of 
state  had  made  out  lists  attesting  the  fact.  Even  if 
the  claim  of  Cronin  was  not  valid,  the  subsequent 
resignation  by  Watts  of  the  postmastership  and  then 
of  the  office  of  elector  had  failed  to  make  it  legal  for 
the  other  two  electors  to  choose  him,  for  as  Watts 
could  not  be  elected  because  of  his  ineligibility,  there 
could  be  no  vacancy,  and  hence  no  filling  of  a  vacancy. 
To  be  sure,  the  statute  of  Oregon  provided  that  "if 
there  shall  be  any  vacancy  in  the  office  of  an  elector 
occasioned  by  the  death,  refusal  to  act,  neglect  to 
attend,  or  otherwise,"  the  electors  should  proceed  to 
fill  such  vacancy ;  but,  argued  the  Democratic  counsel, 
the  law  of  Oregon  stated  only  seven  cases  in  Avhich 
an  office  should  be  deemed  vacant,  namely,  upon  "the 
death  of  the  incumbent;"  "his  resignation;"  "his  re 
moval  ;"  "his  ceasing  to  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  dis 
trict,  county,  town  or  village,"  in  which  the  duties  of 


1  Proceedings,   pp.    461-463. 

2  For    the    Democratic    oral    objections    and    arguments    see 
Ibid,  pp.   466-488,   555-581,   623-636.     For  their  brief  see  p.   778. 


252  The  II  ayes-Til  den 

the  office  were  to  be  exercised;  "his  conviction  of  an 
infamous  crime;"  "his  refusal  or  neglect  to  take  hi& 
oath  of  office ;"  "the  decision  of  a  competent  tribunal, 
declaring  void  his  election  or  appointment."  Since 
Watts  had  never  been  an  "incumbent,"  there  had  not, 
the  Democrats  argued,  been  any  "vacancy"  for  the 
college  to  fill.  Even  should  this  line  of  reasoning  be 
held  to  be  erroneous,  the  Commission  must,  to  be 
consistent  with  its  stand  in  the  Florida  and  Louisiana 
cases,  receive  the  certificate  or  list  signed  by  the  gov 
ernor  and  secretary  of  state,  under  the  great  seal  of 
the  state,  as  final  and  conclusive  evidence  of  how  the 
vote  was  cast.  Whether  or  not  the  governor  had 
acted  legally,  his  action  had  served,  the  Democrats 
held,  to  give  the  Cronin  college  possession  of  the  office 
as  electors  de  facto. 

But  the  Democratic  position  was  badly  shaken  be 
fore  the  hearing  was  concluded. 1  The  Republicans 
successfully  combated  the  claim  that  Cronin  had  been 
elected,  and  in  so  doing  quoted  Thurman  himself  to 
the  effect  "that  the  weight  of  judicial  decision  in  the 
United  States  is  decidedly  against  the  claim  of  a 
minority  man  to  election."  They  met  the  Democratic 
non-vacancy  argument  by  quoting  the  clause,  "The 
decision  of  a  competent  tribunal  declaring  void  his 
[the  incumbent's]  election  or  appointment,"  which, 
they  justly  pointed  out,  was  conclusive  that  under  the 
law  even  an  ineligible  person  might  temporarily  be  an 
"incumbent."  This  was  conclusive  against  the  theorv 

1  For  the  Republican  objections  and  arguments  see  Pro 
ceedings,  pp.  461,  463,  488-549,  581-598,  609-623. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  253 

that  Watts  could  not  have  been  elected,  because 
whether  Watts's  incumbency  was  terminated  by  the 
governor's  decision  —  and  this  the  Republicans  stren 
uously  denied  —  or  by  his  resignation  presented  to  the 
college,  there  existed  a  vacancy  which  the  statute  said 
should  be  filled  by  the  other  electors. 

The  Republicans  were  also  able  to  s-how  pretty 
conclusively  that  the  merits  of  the  case  could  be  ar 
rived  at  by  the  Commission  without  any  trenching 
upon  the  domain  of  state  powers.  The  constitution 
of  Oregon,  they  pointed  out,  declared  that  "the  person 
or  persons  who  shall  receive  the  highest  number  of 
votes  shall  be  declared  duly  elected,"  and  a  statute 
provided  that  the  canvass  of  votes  should  be  made  by 
the  secretary  of  state  in  the  presence  of  the  governor. 
The  secretary  had  canvassed  the  votes,  and  his  certi 
fied  statement,  enclosed  with  the  Republican  return, 
s'howed  that  Odell,  Cartwright,  and  Watts  had  received 
"the  highest  number  of  votes,"  and  were  hence  "duly 
elected."  This  constituted  the  appointment.  All  else 
that  followed  was  merely  certification  of  the  results  of 
the  canvass.  As  the  duties  laid  down  by  the  section  of 
the  law  governing  the  certification  were  ministerial 
only,  any  certificate  not  in  accord  with  the  appoint 
ment  as  shown  by  the  canvass  was  mere  usurpation 
and  should  not  be  taken  as  paramount  to  the  certificate 
of  the  canvass.  Furthermore,  the  matter  of  certifi 
cation  lay  within  the  domain  of  Federal  powers',  for 
the  state  law  on  the  subject  was  merely  a  carrying 
into  effect  of  the  Federal  law  governing  the  matter; 


254  The  Hayes-Tilden 

objection  to  this  contention  could  not  consistently  be 
made  by  the  Democrats,  for  Governor  Grover,  on  the 
groutfd  of  non-agreement  between  the  two,  had 
claimed  to  ignore  the  state  law  and  to  act  under  the 
Federal  law. *  All  other  matters  were  likewise  in  the 
domain  of  Federal  powers  and  could  be  examined  into 
and  the  truth  ascertained. 

Following  the  line  just  indicated,  the  Republicans 
were  able  to  make  good  their  case.  Evidence  was 
taken  which  showed  conclusively  that  Watts  had  re- 
'  signed  the  postmastership  before  acting  as  elector. 2 
The  certificate  showed  that  he  had  also  resigned  his 
electorship  and  had  been  rechosen  by  the  other  two 
electors.  The  certificate  itself  was  regular  except  that 
it  was  not  accompanied  by  the  governor's  lists.  These 
lists,  however,  were  a  statutory,  not  a  constitutional 
requirement;  and  the  Republicans  contended  that  as 
the  certificate  of  the  canvass  furnished  sufficient  au 
thentication,  their  absence  was  not  vital. 

The  vote  on  the  Oregon  case  was  taken  on  Friday, 
February  23d,  at  the  home  of  Senator  Thurman, 
whither  the  Commission  had  repaired  in  order  that 

1  The  state  law  provided  that  "The  secretary  of  state  shall 
prepare  two  lists  of  the  names  of  the  electors  elected,  and  affix 
the  seal  of  the  state  to  the  same.  Such  lists  shall  be  signed 
by  the  governor  and  secretary,  and  by  the  latter  delivered  to 
the  college  of  electors  at  the  hour  of  their  meeting  on  such  first 
Wednesday  of  December." 

The  Federal  law  provided  that  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
executive  of  the  state  to  cause  three  lists  of  the  names  of  the 
electors  of  such  state  to  be  made  and  certified  and  to  be 
delivered  to  the  electors  on  or  before  the  day  on  which  they 
are  required  by  the  preceding  section  to  meet." 

The  governor  claimed  that  because  the  state  law  through 
some  mistake  said  "two  lists"  instead  of  three,  he  was  justified 
in  ignoring  it. — Proceedings,  p.  495. 

2 /bid,  pp.   602-609. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  255 

the  senator,  who  was  ill,  might  participate.  Upon 
one  conclusion,  namely  that  the  Cronin  certificate  did 
not  contain  the  vote  of  Oregon,  the  Commission  was 
unanimous ;  but  upon  the  proposal  to  reject  the  vote  of 
Watts  there  was  the  usual  party  division.  By  the 
same  vote  it  was  then  decided  that  the  Republican 
certificate  should  be  received. 1  The  defense  trans 
mitted  to  Congress  was  as  follows : 

"The  brief  ground  of  this  decision  is  that  it  appears, 
upon  such  evidence  as  by  the  Constitution  and  the  law 
named  in  said  act  of  Congress  is  competent  and  pertin 
ent  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject,  that  the  before- 
mentioned  electors  appear  to  have  been  lawfully 
appointed  such  electors  of  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent  of  the  United  States  for  the  term  beginning 
March  4,  A.  D.  1877,  °f  tne  state  °f  Oregon,  and 
that  they  voted  as  such  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner 
provided  for  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  the  law. 

"And  we  are  further  of  opinion  — 

"That  by  the  laws  of  the  state  of  Oregon  the  duty  of 
canvassing  the  returns  of  all  the  votes  given  at  an 
election  for  electors  of  President  and  Vice-President 
was  imposed  upon  the  secretary  of  state  and  upon  no 
one  else. 

"That  the  secretary  of  state  did  canvass  the  returns 
in  the  case  before  us  and  thereby  ascertained  that  J. 
C.  Cartwright,  W.  H.  Odell,  and  J.  W.  Watts  had  a 
majority  of  all  the  votes  given  for  electors,  and  had 
the  highest  number  of  votes  for  that  office,  and  by  the 
express  language  of  the  statute  those  persons  are 
'deemed  elected.' 

"That  in  obedience  to  his  duty  the  secretary  made 

1  Proceedings,   pp.    637-641. 


256  The  Hayes-Tilden 

a  canvass  and  tabulated  statement  of  the  votes  showing 
this  result,  which,  according  to  law,  he  placed  on  file 
in  his  office  on  the  4th  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1876. 
All  this  appears  by  an  official  certificate  under  the  seal 
of  the  state  and  signed  by  him,  and  delivered  by  him 
to  the  electors  and  forwarded  by  them  to  the  president 
of  the  Senate  with  their  votes. 

"That  the  refusal  or  failure  of  the  governor  of  Ore 
gon  to  sign  the  certificate  of  the  election  of  the  persons 
so  elected  does  not  have  the  effect  of  defeating  their 
appointment  as  such  electors. 

"That  the  act  of  the  governor  of  Oregon  in  giving 
to  E.  A.  Cronin  a  certificate  of  his  election,  though  he 
received  a  thousand  votes  less  than  Watts,  on  the 
ground  that  the  latter  was  ineligible,  was  without 
authority  of  law  and  is  therefore  void. 

"That  although  the  evidence  shows  that  Watts  was 
a  postmaster  at  the  time  of  his  election,  that  fact  is 
rendered  immaterial  by  his  resignation  both'  as  post 
master  and  elector,  and  his  subsequent  appointment 
to  fill  the  vacancy  so  made  by  the  electoral  college/' 1 

In  the  joint  session  an  objection  to  accepting  the 
decision  was  submitted,  and  the  two  houses  therefore 
separated  as  the  law  required.  In  the  Senate2  the 
Republicans  defended  the  decision,  denounced  Grover 
and  Cronin,  and  made  frequent  references  to  the  cipher 
telegrams  to  and  from  15  Gramercy  Park.3  The 
Democratic  speakers  devoted  much  of  their  time  to 
the  Florida  and  Louisiana  cases  and  to  contending 
that  the  decisions  of  the  Commission  were  not  con 
sistent.  They  did  not  attempt  seriously  to  sustain 

1  Proceedings,   p.   640. 

2  For  the  Senate  debate  see  Record,  pp.  1888-1896. 

3  Ibid,  p.   1894. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  257 

the  theory  that  the  Cronin  certificate  should  be  re 
ceived,  but  did  insist  that  only  two  votes  should  be 
counted  for  Hayes. l  When  the  debate  came  to  an 
end,  however,  a  resolution  to  that  effect  was  voted 
down,  and  the  decision  of  the  Commission  was  then 
sustained  by  41  to  24.  2 

In  the  House  the  debate  was  preceded  by  a  spirited 
parliamentary  contest.  Although  a  Democratic  cau 
cus  held  about  a  week  before  had  decided  that  the 
count  should  be  allowed  to  proceed,  3  a  knot  of  repre 
sentatives  had  made  up  their  minds  to  delay  the 
progress  of  the  count  by  dilatory  proceedings.  These 
filibusters  were  of  two  classes.  One  class,  numbering 
about  forty  members  and  composed  of  men  like  Black 
burn  of  Kentucky,  Springer  of  Illinois,  Mills  of  Texas, 
O'Brien  of  Maryland,  and  Cox  of  New  York,  were 
those  irreconcilables  who  were  willing  to  resort  to 
any  measures  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  what 
they  termed  "the  Fraud."  The  other  class,  composed 
in  large  measure  of  Southern  members,  were  actuated 
chiefly  by  other  motives.  Most  of  them  were  desir 
ous  that  the  count  should  be  completed  in  order  to 
prevent  anarchy;  but  before  it  was  accomplished  they 
wished  to  scare  the  Republicans,  and  particularly  the 
friends  of  Hayes,  into  giving  assurances  that  the  new 
Administration  would  refrain  from  supporting  the 
Republican  claimants  for  state  offices  in  South  Caro 
lina  and  Louisiana.  This  movement  was  organized 

1  Record,  p.   1896. 

2  Proceedings,    p.    645. 

3  H.  R.   Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,   45th  Cong.   3d  Sess.,  I,  p.   970. 


258  The  Hayes-Tilden 

shortly  after  the  Louisiana  decision  had  convinced 
most  Democrats  that  the  prospects  of  saving  the 
national  ticket  were  hopeless;  those  who  entered  it 
were  inspired  by  the  belief  that  it  would  be  thrifty 
policy  to  save  even  a  little  out  of  the  wreck. 1  Con 
ditions  seemed  to  favor  the  filibusters,  for  the  par 
liamentary  methods  of  "Czar"  Reed  had  not  then  been 
introduced ;  and  in  the  preceding  Congress  Mr.  Ran 
dall,  who  was  now  speaker,  had  for  seventy-two  hours 
occupied  the  floor  and  had  forced  the  Republicans  to 
abandon  their  attempt  to  re-enact  the  Force  Bill.  2 

But  when  the  irreconcilables,  led  by  such  men  as 
Clymer  of  Pennsylvania,  Lane  of  Oregon,  and  Spring 
er  of  Illinois,  began  their  attempt  to  hold  up  the  count 
by  introducing  dilatory  motions,  they  discovered,  to 
their  surprise  and  indignation,  that  the  speaker  re 
fused  to  entertain  the  motions.  A  scene  of  disorder 
followed,  but  the  speaker  stood  firm.  The  Chair 
"rules,"  said  he,  "that  when  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  directs  anything  to  be  done,  or  when 
the  law  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
enacted  in  obedience  thereto  directs  any  act  by  this 
House,  it  is  not  in  order  to  make  any  motion  to 
obstruct  or  impede  the  execution  of  that  injunction 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws."  3 

Thanks  to  this  wise  and  determined  stand,  the 
House  was  then  able  to  proceed  to  the  consideration 

1  H.    R.   Mis.   Doc.    No.    31,    45th   Cong.    3d   Sess.,    I,    pp.    971. 
980;   III,   pp.    595,   631-632. 

2  McClure's,  XXIII,  p.  85;  American,  Law  Review,  XXXVIII, 
p.   173. 

3  Record,  pp.    1905-1907. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  259 

of  the  Commission's  finding.  As  in  the  Senate,  the 
Democratic  speakers  did  not  display  a  great  deal  of 
enthusiasm  for  the  Grover-Cronin  proceedings.  In 
fact,  Mr.  Le  Moyne  of  Illinois  said:  "I  have  never 
believed  in  this  Oregon  road,  and  it  does  not  satisfy 
me  to  say  that  it  is  only  using  the  same  means  em 
ployed  by  the  Republicans."  The  same  speaker  also 
showed  considerable  disgust  at  the  Democratic  man 
agement  of  affairs.  "We  of  the  West,"  he  declared, 
"are  done  in  politics  with  the  domination  of  New 
York."  Referring  to  the  Oregon  dispatches,  he  said : 
"If  Mr.  Tilden  either  directly  or  indirectly  consented 
to  the  purchase  of  a  Republican  elector,  he  deserves 
double  condemnation  from  every  man  who  supported 
him."  1  Several  speakers  laid  stress  upon  alleged  in 
consistencies  in  the  Commission's  rulings  in  the  var 
ious  cases  2  and  upon  inconsistencies  in  the  positions 
taken  by  Republican  members  of  that  tribunal.  In 
the  latter  connection  Mr.  Hewitt  accused  Mr.  Hoar 
of  having  said  in  the  debate  on  the  bill  that  proof 
would  be  admitted ;  the  charge  brought  a  warm  denial 
from  Mr.  Hoar,  who  proceeded  to  intimate,  amidst 
laughter,  that,  as  a  result  of  the  responsibilities  im 
posed  upon  him,  there  was  "a  screw  loose  somewhere" 
in  Mr.  Hewitt.  3 


1  Record,  p.   1913. 

2  E.  g.,  Ibid,  pp.   1910-1911. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   1914-1915.     A  study  of  the  Record  will  show  that 
Hewitt's    charge    was    not    well    founded.     Not    long    before    his 
death  Mr.  Hoar  prepared  a  statement  which  is  to  be  published 
in  case  the  one  left  by  Mr.  Hewitt  (see  foot-note  at  end  of  pre 
ceding  chapter)    appears.     Mr.   Hoar's  statement  makes   certain 
allegations   which  are   designed  to   cast  a  decidedly  unfavorable 
light  on  Mr.   Hewitt's   veracity. 


260  The  Hayes-Tilde* 

The  Republican  "eight,"  and  especially  Judge  Brad 
ley,  came  in  for  much  rabid  denunciation.  Referring 
to  Bradley,  Clymer  of  Pennsylvania  said:  "We  in 
this  House  assisted  in  developing  one  the  latchets  of 
whose  shoes  even  Wells,  in  all  his  moral  deformity,  is 
unworthy  to  unloose.  Their  precious  names  will  go 
to  posterity  linked  together,  as  those  between  whom, 
here  in  this  Capitol,  in  the  very  temple  of  justice,  the 
rights  of  the  people  were  betrayed  and  crucified." 1 
In  reply  to  talk  of  this  kind,  Woodworth  of  Ohio  said 
it  was  curious  that  "while  the  supposed  partisanship 
of  the  eight  who  concur  is  denounced,  there  is  a  silence 
profound  as  the  hush  of  death  as  to  the  at  least  equal 
partisanship  of  the  seven  who  dissent." 

The  same  speaker  accused  the  Democrats  of  being 
poor  losers.  "Filibuster,"  said  he,  "has  been  called  in 
to  aid  those  who  cannot  accept  defeat.  I  am  not 
surprised  at  this,  nor  at  the  chagrin  and  natural  wrath 
of  our  Democratic  friends ;  for  with  everything  to  gain 
and  nothing  to  lose,  they  cunningly  set  a  trap  and  were 
themselves  caught  —  caught  by  the  act  of  God,  who 
disposes  of  all  human  events,  and  by  the  act  of  the 
Illinois  legislature,  which  disposed  of  Judge  Davis 
[Laughter]. 

"They  digged  a  pit,  they  digged  it  deep, 
They  digged  it  for  their  brother ; 

But  through  their  sin  they  did  fall  in 
The  pit  they  digged  for  t'other."  : 

But,  as  usual,  the  debate  had  no  effect  upon  the 

1  Record,  p.   1908. 

2  Ibid,  p.   1911. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  261 

vote.  A  resolution  to  accept  the  Commission's  deci 
sion  was  so  amended  as  to  provide  for  rejecting  the 
vote  of  Watts,  and  in  this  form  was  then  adopted 
without  a  division.  * 

The  count  of  the  states  in  joint  session  then  pro 
ceeded,  but  was  much  delayed  by  technical  objections 
to  votes  from  states  in  which  there  had  been  no  con 
test.  Such  an  objection  was  made  to  receiving  one 
of  the  votes  from  Pennsylvania;  but  as,  after  debate, 
only  the  House  sustained  the  objection,  the  vote  was 
counted  with  the  rest.  2  An  equally  futile  objection  — 
sustained  by  neither  house  —  was  made  to  one  of  the 
votes  of  Rhode  Island ;  then,  about  six  in  the  afternoon 
of  February  26th,  South  Carolina  was  reached. 

From  South  Carolina  there  were  two  certificates. 
The  first,  that  from  the  Hayes  electors,  was  certified  by 
Governor  Chamberlain  and  Secretary  of  State  Hayne ; 
the  second,  that  from  the  Tilden  "electors,"  was  not 
certified  by  any  one,  but  in  it  the  "electors"  claimed 
to  have  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast,  alleged 
that  they  had  wrongfully  been  deprived  of  their  rights 
by  the  returning  board,  and  referred  to  the  mandamus 
and  quo  warranto  proceedings  which  have  already  been 
described.  Objections  were  submitted  against  both 


1  Proceedings,   pp.   645-646. 

2  One  of  the  electors,  who  was  a  centennial  commissioner,  had 
remained    away    from    the    college,    and    the    other    electors    had 
chosen   H.   A.    Boggs   to   fill   the   vacancy.     The   Democrats   held 
that   because   the   first   elector  was   ineligible,   he  was   never  an 
incumbent,   and   that   hence   his   resignation   created   no   vacancy 
which  the  other  electors  had  power  to  fill.     The  contention  was 
not,    however,    sustained   by    all    the    Democrats. — E.    g.,    speech 
of   Cockrell,   Record,   p.    1905.     For   the   whole   matter   see   Ibid, 
pp.  1900-1905,  1919-1923,  1927-1938,  and  Proceedings,  pp.  647-652. 

18 


262  The  Hayes-Til  den 

returns,  and  the  case  was  referred  to  the  Commission. 1 
The  contest  before  that  body  2  was  a  rather  perfunc 
tory  one.  The  Democratic  objectors  did  not  attempt 
to  prove  that  the  Democratic  electors  had  been  chosen, 
but  took  the  ground  that  because  the  legislature  had 
failed  to  provide  a  registration  law  as  required  by  the 
constitution  of  1868  there  had  been  no  legal  election 
in  the  state.  3  They  further  contended  that  the  vote 
of  the  state  ought  not  to  be  received  because  at  the 
time  of  the  election  there  was  not  a  republican  form 
of  government  in  the  state.  In  support  of  this  view 
they  alleged  that  prior  to  and  during  the  election  Fed 
eral  troops,  without  authority  of  law,  had  been  sta 
tioned  at  or  near  the  polling-places,  with  the  result 
that  no  legal  or  free  election  could  be  held ;  that  more 
than  1,000  deputy  United  States  marshals,  appointed 
under  an  unconstitutional  law,  had  interfered  with  the 
full  and  free  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage  by  the 
voters  of  the  state.  In  their  anxiety  to  prove  that  a 
condition  of  anarchy  had  existed  in  the  state  the 
Democrats  made  some  interesting  admissions.  "We 
propose  to  show,"  said  Representative  Kurd,  "by  testi 
mony  taken  by  the  minority  of  the  same  committee 
[the  House  committee],  that  in  the  counties  which 
gave  large  Democratic  majorities  the  Democratic 
leaders  and  managers  interfered  with  the  freedom  of 
the  election  by  practicing  intimidation  upon  their  black 

1  For   the   returns   and    the   written    objections    see    Proceed 
ings,  pp.  659-664. 

2  Owing  to  the  illness  of  Thurman  his  place  on  the  Commission 
was  now  taken  by  Kernan  of  New  York. — Ibid,  p.  655. 

3  For  the  Democratic  oral  objections  see  Ibid,  pp.  666-678. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  263 

employes  and  those  who  might  happen  to  live  within 
their  districts.  We  propose  to  show  that  rifle-clubs 
were  organized  which  were  not  disbanded  in  accord 
ance  with  the  proclamation  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  under  the  effect  of  these 
rifle-clubs  and  of  the  intimidation  that  was  practiced 
in  that  method  large  numbers  of  negroes  who  other 
wise  would  have  voted  the  Republican  ticket  voted  the 
Democratic  ticket."  l 

As  the  Democrats  did  not  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
votes  of  the  Tilden  "electors"  should  be  received,  the 
Republican  objectors2  confined  themselves  almost  en 
tirely  to  defending  their  own  certificate  and  to  com 
bating  the  argument  that  the  vote  of  the  state  ought 
to  be  thrown  out.  They  contended  that  the  constitu 
tional  provision  requiring  a  registration  was  directory 
only,  that  the  legislature  had  in  effect  complied  with 
the  requirement  by  enacting  that  a  poll-list  should  be 
kept,  that  the  Democratic  position  on  the  matter  was 
untenable  because  otherwise  all  elections  and  all  gov 
ernment  in  South  Carolina  during  the  last  eight  years 
would  be  illegal  and  void.  Upon  the  question  of 
whether  the  state  possessed  a  republican  form  of 
government  they  argued  that  the  fact  that  the  state 
was  represented  in  both  houses  of  Congress  must  be 
taken  as  conclusive ;  to  sustain  this  contention  they 
quoted  an  opinion  delivered  in  the  case  of  Luther  vs. 


1  Proceedings,  p.   669.   In  reporting  his  speech  the  New  York 
World  of  Feb.  28th  represented  him  as  saying  that  work  of  this 
kind  was  done  by  "colored   [sic]   rifle-clubs." 

2  For  the  speeches  of  the   Republican  objectors   see   Proceed 
ings,  pp.   678-688. 


264  The  Hayes-Tilden 

Borden.  As  regarded  the  use  of  troops  and  deputy 
marshals,  they  contended  that  the  Commission  was  not 
competent  to  receive  evidence ;  they  pointed  out,  how 
ever,  that  both  the  troops  and  the  marshals  had  been 
used  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
and  under  the  direction  of  the  President  and  the  at 
torney  general. 

In  order  to  hasten  the  count,  the  Republicans  sub 
mitted  their  case  without  any  argument  by  counsel. 1 
For  the  Democrats  short  speeches  were  made  by 
Montgomery  Blair  2  and  Jeremiah  S.  Black.  3  Mr. 
Black  made  the  closing  address.  As  he  expressly  dis 
claimed  any  intention  of  arguing  the  case,  it  is  evident 
that  he  was  put  forward  for  no  other  purpose  than  to 
damn  the  Commission.  And  damn  it  he  did  in  a  bitter 
invective,  hardly  to  have  been  expected  from  the  man 
who,  in  the  greatest  crisis  of  our  history,  had  ren 
dered  to  a  weak  President  one  of  the  mildest  and  most 
unfortunate  opinions  ever  given  by  a  public  officer.  4 
He  was,  he  said,  "fallen  from  the  proud  estate  of  an 
American  citizen,"  and  was  "fit  for  nothing  on  earth 
but  to  represent  the  poor,  defrauded,  broken-hearted 
Democracy." 

"We  may,"  he  continued,  "struggle  for  justice ;  we 
may  cry  for  mercy;  we  may  go  down  on  our  knees, 
and  beg  and  woo  for  some  little  recognition  of  our 
rights  as  American  citizens ;  but  we  might  as  well  put 


1  Proceedings,    p.    694. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   688-694. 

3  Ibid,   pp.    695-699. 

4  Burgess,  The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  I,  p.  80. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  265 

up  our  prayers  to  Jupiter,  or  Mars,  as  bring  suit  in 
the  court  where  Rhadamanthus  presides.  There  is 
not  a  god  on  Olympus  that  would  not  listen  to  us  with 
more  favor  than  we  shall  be  heard  by  our  adversaries. 
.  .  .  Usually  it  is  said  that  the  'fowler  setteth  not 
forth  his  net  in  the  sight  of  the  bird/  but  this  fowler 
set  the  net  in  the  sight  of  the  birds  that  went  into  it. 

It  is  largely  our  own  fault  that  we  are  caught 

They  offer  us  everything  now.  They  denounce 
negro  supremacy  and  carpet-bag  thieves.  Their  pet 
policy  for  the  South  is  to  be  abandoned.  They  offer 
us  everything  but  one;  but  on  that  subject  their  lips 
are  closely  sealed.  They  refuse  to  say  that  they  will 

not  cheat  us  hereafter  in  the  elections 

"If  this  thing  stands  accepted  and  the  law  you  have 
made  for  this  occasion  shall  be  the  law  for  all  occa 
sions,  we  can  never  expect  such  a  thing  as  an  honest 
election  again.  If  you  want  to  know  who  will  be 
President  by  a  future  election,  do  not  inquire  how  the 
people  of  the  states  are  going  to  vote.  You  need 
only  to  know  what  kind  of  scoundrels  constitute  the 
returning  boards,  and  how  much  it  will  take  to  buy 
them. 

"But  I  think  even  that  will  end  some  day.  At 
present  you  have  us  down  and  under  your  feet.  Never 
had  you  a  better  right  to  rejoice.  Well  may  you  say, 
'We  have  made  a  covenant  with  death,  and  with  hell 
are  we  at  agreement;  when  the  overflowing  scourge 
shall  pass  through,  it  shall  not  come  unto  us :  for  we 
have  made  lies  our  refuge,  and  under  falsehoods  have 


266  The  Hayes-Tilden 

•we  hid  ourselves.'  But  nevertheless  wait  a  little  while. 
The  waters  of  truth  will  rise  gradually,  and  slowly 
but  surely,  and  then  look  out  for  the  overwhelming 
scourge.  'The  refuge  of  lies  shall  be  swept  away,  and 
the  hiding  place  of  falsehood  shall  be  uncovered.'  This 
mighty  and  puissant  nation  will  yet  raise  herself  up 
like  a  strong  man  after  sleep,  and  shake  her  invincible 
locks  in  a  fashion  you  little  think  of  now.  Wait; 
retribution  will  come  in  due  time.  Justice  travels 
with  a  leaden  heel  but  strikes  with  an  iron  hand.  God's 
mill  grinds  slowly  but  dreadfully  fine.  Wait  till  the 
flood-gate  is  lifted  and  a  full  head  of  water  comes 
rushing  on.  Wait,  and  you  will  see  fine  grinding 
then." 

But  the  fiery  words  of  the  old  Pennsylvanian  did 
not  suffice  to  melt  the  hearts  of  the  Republican  eight. 
Upon  a  proposal  to  receive  evidence  regarding  the  use 
of  the  troops  and  of  the  marshals  they  voted  as  usual. 
Then,  after  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  the  Demo 
cratic  electors  had  not  been  chosen  had  been  unani 
mously  agreed  to,  they  carried  a  resolution  to  count 
the  votes  of  South  Carolina  for  Hayes.  They  ex 
plained  their  action  in  the  following  words : 

"The  brief  ground  of  this  decision  is,  that  it  appears, 
upon  such  evidence  as  by  the  Constitution  and  the  law 
named  in  said  act  of  Congress  is  competent  and  per 
tinent  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject,  that  the 
beforementioned  electors  appear  to  have  been  lawfully 
appointed  such  electors  of  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent  of  the  United  States  for  the  term  beginning 
March  4,  A.  D.  1877,  of  the  state  of  South  Carolina, 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  267 

and  that  they  voted  as  such  at  the  time  and  in  the 
manner  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  law. 

"And  the  Commission,  as  further  grounds  for  their 
decision,  are  of  opinion  that  the  failure  of  the  legis 
lature  to  provide  a  system  for  the  registration  of  per 
sons  entitled  to  vote,  does  not  render  nugatory  all 
elections  held  under  laws  otherwise  sufficient,  though 
it  may  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  enact  such  a 
law.  If  it  were  otherwise,  all  government  in  that  state 
is  a  usurpation,  its  officers  without  authority,  and  the 
social  compact  in  that  state  is  at  an  end. 

"That  this  Commission  must  take  notice  that  there 
is  a  government  in  South  Carolina  republican  in  form, 
since  its  Constitution  provides  for  such  a  government, 
and  it  is,  and  was  on  the  day  of  appointing  electors,  so 
recognized  by  the  executive  and  by  both  branches  of 
the  legislative  department  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States. 

"That  so  far  as  this  Commission  can  take  notice  of 
the  presence  of  the  soldiers  of  the  United  States  in  the 
state  of  South  Carolina  during  the  election,  it  appears 
that  they  were  placed  there  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  suppress  insurrection,  at  the  request 
of  the  proper  authorities  of  the  state. 

"And  we  are  also  of  opinion  that  from  the  papers 
before  us  it  appears  that  the  governor  and  secretary 
of  state  having  certified  under  the  seal  of  the  state 
that  the  electors  whose  votes  we  have  decided  to  be 
the  lawful  electoral  votes  of  the  state,  were  duly  ap 
pointed  electors,  which  certificate,  both  by  presumption 
of  law  and  by  the  certificate  of  the  rival  claimants  of 
the  electoral  office,  was  based  upon  the  action  of  the 
state  canvassers,  there  exists  no  power  in  this  Com 
mission,  as  there  exists  none  in  the  two  houses  of 
Congress  in  counting  the  electoral  vote,  to  inquire  into 


The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  circumstances  under  which  the  primary  vote  for 
electors  was  given. 

"The  power  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  in 
its  legislative  capacity  to  inquire  into  the  matters 
alleged,  and  to  act  upon  the  information  so  obtained, 
is  a  very  different  one  from  its  power  in  the  matter 
of  counting  the  electoral  vote.  The  votes  to  be  counted 
are  those  presented  by  the  state,  and  when  ascertained 
and  presented  by  the  proper  authorities  of  the  states 
they  must  be  counted."  1 

While  the  South  Carolina  case  was  before  the  Com 
mission  other  events  of  great  significance  had  been 
taking  place  in  secret.  As  already  narrated,  a  move 
ment  had  for  some  days  been  on  foot  to  exact  from 
the  friends  of  Hayes  pledges  regarding  the  state 
governments  in  Louisiana  and  South  Carolina.  2  This 
movement  had  created  considerable  alarm  among  Re 
publicans.  As  early  as  February  23d,  in  an  effort 
to  conciliate  the  Southern  Democrats,  Mr.  Charles 
Foster,  representative  from  Hayes's  own  district,  had 
stated  in  a  speech  in  the  Louisiana  debate  that  it  would 
be  the  policy  of  Mr.  Hayes,  if  inaugurated,  to  wipe 
out  sectional  lines,  that  under  him  "the  flag  should 
wave  over  states,  not  provinces,  over  freemen  and  not 
subjects/' 3  Negotiations  were  entered  into  between 

1  Proceedings,    702. 

2  An  attempt  to  ascertain  the  probable  attitude  of  Hayes  to 
ward  the  South  had  been  made  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  pre 
ceding  November.     At  that  time  Mr.  W.  H.  Roberts  of  the  New 
Orleans    Times  visited    Columbus    for   that    purpose.     Hayes    re 
ferred  him   to   his   letter   of  acceptance   and  also   stated   that  in 
his   opinion   intelligence   ought   to  govern.     H.   R.   Mis.   Doc    No 
31,    45th   Cong.    3d   Sess.,   I,   pp.    875-899. 

3  Ibid,  III,  p.  596  ;  Record,  p.  1708.     On  the  23d  Hayes  wrote 
to    Foster    commending    this    speech.     He    said    that    when    the 
count    was    completed — if    favorable — the   public   was    to    be    in 
formed  that  the  Southern  policy  was  to  be  as  Foster  had  stated 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  269 

the  interested  parties,  and  various  conferences  were 
held. 1  Qn  the  26th  of  February  there  were  three 
such  conferences.  One  took  place  in  the  room  of  the 
House  committee  on  appropriations  between  Mr.  Fos 
ter,  Representative  John  Young  Brown  of  Ken 
tucky,  and  Senator  J.  B.  Gordon  of  Georgia.2  An 
other  occurred  in  the  finance  committee  room  of  the 
Senate ; 3  present,  Major  E.  A.  Burke,  special  agent 
for  Louisiana,  Stanley  Matthews  and  ex-Governor 
Dennison  of  Ohio,  and  John  Sherman. 4  The  third 
took  place  that  evening  in  the  room  of  Mr.  Evarts  at 
KWormley's  Hotel;  present,  Mr.  Burke,  Mr.  E.  J.  Ellis 
and  Mr.  W.  M.  Levy,  Democratic  representatives 
from  Louisiana,  Mr.  Henry  Watterson,  who  repre 
sented  the  interests  of  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Matthews, 
Mr.  Dennison,  Mr.  Sherman,  and  Mr.  James  A.  Gar- 
field.  5 

The  outcome  of  these  conferences  was  to  all  intents 


it.  Foster  showed  this  letter  to  Burke  on  the  25th.  Burke 
"urged  direct  assurances  or  action  before  House  yields." — See 
Burke's  telegram  to  Nicholls,  Report  just  quoted,  p.  618. 

1  Burke  held  an  interview  with   Stanley  Matthews  as   early 
as  the  night  of  February  16th,  just  after  the  Louisiana  decision 
was  announced.     Bishop  Wilmer  of  Louisiana  was  also  in  Wash 
ington    trying   to   assist   Nicholls    and   his   associates.     After   an 
interview  with  Grant  he  visited  Columbus.     From  there  he  tele 
graphed  on  Feb.  23d:     "Peace  not  to  be  disturbed  in  Louisiana." 
— H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  Ill,  p.  617. 

2  Letter   of    Brown    in    Louisville    Courier- Journal    of    March 
29th.     Given  in  New  York  Times  of  same  date. 

3  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  Ill,  p.  619. 

4  Sherman  had  just  returned  from  a  visit  to  Hayes  in  Colum 
bus.     On  the  15th  Hayes  had  written  Sherman  that  he  preferred 
not  to  make  any  new  declarations  regarding  his  Southern  policy 
further   than   to  confirm  what  he   had   said   in   his   letter  of  ac 
ceptance.     "But  you  may  say,  if  you  deem  it  advisable,  that  you 
know  that  I  will  stand  by  the  friendly  and  encouraging  words 
of  that  letter  and  by  all   that  they  imply.     You  cannot  express 
that  too  strongly." — John  Sherman's  Recollections,  I,  p.   561. 

5  House  document  just  cited,  III,  pp.   591,   619. 


270  The  Hayes-Tilden 

and  purposes  an  agreement  —  ''bargain"  is  perhaps 
a  more  concise  term  —  by  which  each  contracting 
party  tacitly  agreed  to  do  certain  things.  *  The  Re 
publicans,  while  expressly  disclaiming  any  authority 
to  speak  for  him,  in  effect  guaranteed  that  Mr.  Hayes, 
vvhen  he  became  President,  would,  by  a  gradual  pro 
cess  of  non-interference  and  withdrawal  of  troops, 
allow  the  Republican  governments  in  the  two  states 
to  disappear.  They  also  agreed  to  use  their  best  en 
deavors  to  induce  President  Grant  to  embark  upon  the 
same  policy  before  the  end  of  his  term. 2  The  Dem 
ocrats,  on  their  part,  promised  to  use  their  influence  to 
stop  filibustering,  and  guaranteed  peace,  good  order, 
protection  of  the  law  to  whites  and  blacks  alike,  and 
no  persecution  for  past  political  offenses.  In  order  to 
avoid  precipitating  the  whole  issue  upon  the  Senate 
before  the  cabinet  should  have  been  confirmed  and 
thereby  .rousing  up  perhaps  sufficient  opposition  to 
prevent  the  confirmation  of  persons  favorable  to  the 
new  Southern  policy,  the  Democrats  further  agreed 
that  the  Nicholls  legislature  should  not  elect  the  long- 
term  senator  before  March  loth.  3 

1  Many  efforts  were  later  made  to  show  that  no  bargain  was 
made,  but  there  is  no  evading  the  fact  that  in  all  essentials  there 
was    an    agreement.     Hayes,    however,    was    not    a    party    to    it. 
He   had   steadfastly   refused   to   authorize   any   one   to    represent 
him,  and  had  already  made  up  his  mind  regarding  his  Southern 
policy.     On  Feb.  4th  he  wrote  to  Schurz  in  regard  to  the  use  of 
the  military  as  follows :      "But  there  is  to  be  an  end  to  all  that, 
except  in  emergencies  which  I  cannot  think  of  as  possible  again." 

2  The  President  had  already  declined  to  recognize  either  gov 
ernment. — See   his   telegrams   to  Kellogg  and   Gen.   Augur   in   H. 
R.   Mis.   Doc.   No.    31,    45th   Cong.    3d   Sess.,    III.   pp.    603-604.      In 
case  one  must  be  recognized,  however,   he  intended  to   recognize 
Packard. — Telegram    to    Augur    just    cited.     As    time    passed    he 
became  more  favorable  to  Nicholls.      See  Ibid,  pp.  604-631. 

3  For  accounts   of   the  Wormley  Conference   see  Ibid,   I,   pp. 
978,   980,    981,    984,    990;    III,   pp.   595-633. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  271 

Certain  details  of  the  agreement  were  arranged  next 
day.  The  Democratic  assurances  of  peace,  order,  and 
equal  rights  were  ratified  by  Governor  Nicholls  and 
by  a  legislative  caucus,  and  a  copy  was  sent  by  Burke 
to  Matthews  and  his  associates.  Matthews,  on  his 
part,  assured  the  Louisiana  agents  that  Grant  had 
promised  that  as  soon  as  the  count  should  be  completed 
all  orders  heretofore  issued  in  regard  to  preserving 
the  status  quo  should  be  rescinded  or  modified  so  far 
as  they  were  necessary  for  preserving  the  public  peace.1 
Mr.  Foster  sought  John  Young  Brown  and  gave  to 
him  the  following  unsigned  letter  addressed  to  Brown 
and  to  Senator  Gordon : 

"GENTLEMEN:  Referring  to  the  conversation  had 
with  you  yesterday  in  which  Governor  Hayes's  policy 
as  to  the  status  of  certain  Southern  states  was  dis 
cussed,  we  desire  to  say  in  reply  that  we  can  assure 
you  in  the  strongest  possible  manner  of  our  great  desire 
to  have  adopted  such  a  policy  as  will  give  to  the  people 
of  the  states  of  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana  the 
right  to  control  their  own  affairs  in  their  own  way; 
and  to  say  further  that  we  feel  authorized,  from  an 
acquaintance  with  and  knowledge  of  Governor  Hayes 
and  his  views  on  this  question,  to  pledge  ourselves  to 
you  that  such  will  be  his  policy." 

After  reading  the  letter  Brown  expressed  the  opin 
ion  that  it  might  be  "fuller  and  stronger,"  but  that 
coming  from  the  men  it  did  it  would  be  sufficient. 
Foster  then  saw  Matthews,  and  an  hour  later  Brown 
received  from  Foster  the  following: 

1  See  copy  of  written  assurance  given  by  Matthews  to  Burke 
and  Levy,  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  III.,  p. 
623. 


272  The  Hayes-Tilden 

"GENTLEMEN:  Referring  to  the  conversation  had 
with  you  yesterday,  in  which  Governor  Hayes's  policy 
as  to  the  status  of  certain  states  was  discussed,  we 
desire  to  say  that  we  can  assure  you  in  the  strongest 
possible  manner  of  our  great  desire  to  have  him  adopt 
such  a  policy  as  will  give  to  the  people  of  the  states 
of  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana  the  right  to  control 
their  own  affairs  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws 
made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  to  say  further,  that 
from  an  acquaintance  with  and  knowledge  of  Governor 
Hayes  and  his  views,  we  have  the  most  complete  con 
fidence  that  such  will  be  the  policy  of  his  administra 
tion.  Respectfully, 

"STANLEY  MATTHEWS, 
"CHARLES  FOSTER." 

Brown  did  not  like  some  of  the  generalities  which 
this  letter  contained,  but  accepted  it.  By  his  request 
Foster  affixed  his  signature  to  the  first  letter,  and 
Brown  retained  that  letter  also.  Later  Brown  gave 
copies  to  Ellis,  to  Burke,  to  M.  C.  Butler,  of  South 
Carolina,  and  to  one  or  two  other  persons. 1 

While  the  personal  friends  of  Hayes  were  striving 
in  ways  just  described  to  lessen  Democratic  opposition 
to  the  completion  of  the  count,  other  schemes  were 
being  devised  for  the  contingency  which  would  arise 
should  the  count  not  be  completed.  In  the  Senate  Mr. 
Sargent  on  the  26th  introduced  a  resolution  to  the 
effect  that  the  Senate  should  proceed  at  once  to  elect 
a  president  pro  tempore  to  succeed  Mr.  Ferry,  whose 


1  See  Brown's  statement  in  the  Louisville  Courier -Journal  of 
March  29th.  The  statement  is  giren  in  the  New  York  Times 
of  the  same  date. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  273 

term  as  senator  would  expire  on  the  4th  of  March. 1 
The  resolution  was  laid  aside  until  the  time  should 
come  when  its  passage  would  be  desirable.  If  that 
time  had  come,  it  would  probably  have  been  passed, 
and  Morton  would  have  been  chosen.  He  would  then 
either  have  completed  the  count  and  declared  Hayes 
elected,  or  would  himself  have  been  installed  as  Pres 
ident  under  a  forced  construction  of  the  law  of  1792.  2 
In  the  House  David  Dudley  Field  on  the  2/th 
reported  from  the  committee  on  the  powers,  priv 
ileges,  and  duties  of  the  House  in  counting  the  elec 
toral  vote  a  bill  providing  that,  in  case  of  a  failure  to 
elect,  the  line  of  succession  should  be  the  president  of 
the  Senate,  the  speaker  of  the  House,  and  the  secre 
tary  of  state,  and  that  the  person  who  succeeded 
should  hold  office  until  a  successor  had  been  duly 
elected.  3  The  bill  was  regarded  by  some  as  part  of  a 
scheme  to  defeat  the  count  and  secure  a  new  election. 
Some  Democrats  opposed  it  because  they  preferred 
Hayes  to  Morton ; 4  but  it  was  hurried  through,  5  and 
was  then  sent  to  the  Senate,  where  it  was  referred  to  a 
committee,  and  never  came  to  a  vote.  6 


1  Record,  p.  1926  ;   Times  of  27th. 

2  Record,  p.  1983  ;  Times  of  March  2d;  letter  of  William  Dud 
ley  Foulke  to  the  writer.     The  law  of  1792   provided,   "That  in 
case  of  the  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  disability  both  of  the 
President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  the  President 
of  the  Senate,  pro  tempore,  and,  in  case  there  shall  be  no  Pres 
ident  of  the  Senate,  then  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives,  for  the  time  being,  shall  act  as  President  of  the  United 
States  until  such  disability  be  removed,  or  until  a  President  be 
elected." 

3  Record,  p.   1980. 

4  Ibid,  p.  1983. 

5  Ibid,  p.  1984. 

6  Ibid,  p.   1974. 


274  The  Hayes-Tilden 

On  the  28th  the  South  Carolina  decision  was  read  in 
joint  session.  Objections  were  at  once  offered,  and 
the  houses  separated  to  deliberate.  After  a  short 
debate  the  Senate  accepted  the  decision  by  39  to  22. x 
In  the  House  after  the  irreconcilables,  led  by  Springer 
of  Illinois  and  O'Brien  of  Maryland,  had  tried  hard 
to  secure  a  dilatory  recess,  but  had  been  thwarted  by 
the  opposition  of  the  Republicans,  of  the  speaker, 
and  of  a  number  of  Democrats  under  the  leadership 
of  Fernando  Wood,  who  had  now  become  a  conserva 
tive,  a  debate  was  had,  after  which  the  decision  was 
rejected. 2 

When  the  joint  session  had  been  resumed  and  Ver 
mont  had  been  reached,  the  proceedings  entered  upon 
a  new  and  dangerous  phase.  After  the  regular  return 
had  been  read,  Representative  Poppleton  inquired 
whether  any  other  return  had  been  received.  Mr. 
Ferry  gave  a  negative  answer.  Mr.  Hewitt,  who  up 
to  this  time  had  favored  the  completion  of  the  count 
and  had  been  much  criticised  by  some  rabid  Democrats, 
then  arose,  and  amidst  breathless  interest  asked  to  be 
allowed  to  make  a  statement. 

"I  hold  in  my  hand,"  said  he,  "a  package  which 
purports  to  contain  electoral  votes  from  the  state  of 
Vermont.  This  package  was  delivered  to  me  by  ex 
press  about  the  middle  of  December  last,  and  with  it 
came  a  letter  stating  that  a  .similar  package  had  been 
forwarded  by  mail  to  the  presiding  officer  of  the 


1  Record,   pp.    1992-2002. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  2005-2020. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jb  275 

Senate;  I  called  upon  him  and  inquired  whether  any 
other  than  one  certificate  from  the  state  of  Vermont 
had  been  received  by  him  by  mail,  and  he  informed 
me  that  there  had  been  no  other  received  by  him  than 
the  one  which  was  already  in  his  possession.  I  then 
tendered  to  him  this  package,  the  seals  of  which  are 
unbroken  and  which  is  now  as  it  came  into  my  pos 
session.  He  declined  to  receive  it,  upon  the  ground 
that  he  had  no  authority  in  law  to  do  so.  Under  the 
circumstances,  I  now  tender  this  package  to  the  pre 
siding  officer  of  the  Senate  as  purporting  to  contain 
electoral  votes  from  the  state  of  Vermont."  x 

It  was  well  known  that  the  package  had  been  sent 
in  by  a  minority  Democratic  candidate  who,  although 
defeated  by  about  twenty-four  thousand  votes,  claimed 
to  have  been  elected  because  one  of  the  Republican 
candidates  was  a  postmaster.  Mr.  Ferry  pointed  out 
that  it  would  not  be  legal  for  him  to  receive  the  certi 
ficate  because  the  law  designated  the  first  Thursday 
in  February  as  the  date  on  which  certificates  must  be 
handed  in ; 2  but  the  opponents  of  the  count,  in  ac 
cordance  with  a  prearranged  plan,  were  determined 
to  make  the  most  of  the  opportunity  which  they 
thought  presented  itself.  Springer  attempted  to  pre 
cipitate  a  debate  in  joint  session,  shrieked  wildly,  threw 
his  arms  about,  and  for  a  time  refused  to  come  to 
order.  3  After  some  minutes  of  excitement,  however, 
quiet  was  restored,  and  the  objections  against  the 

1  Proceedings,  p.  712. 

2  Ibid,  p.   712. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   712-714. 


276  The  Hayes-Til  den 

Vermont   return  were   submitted. a     The  two  houses 
then  separated. 

In  the  Senate  a  decision  was  soon  reached  by  a 
unanimous  vote  to  count  the  Vermont  return, 2  but 
in  the  House  an  adjournment  was  decided  upon  before 
a  vote  had  been  taken.  3  The  session  of  the  following 
day  was  probably  the  stormiest  ever  witnessed  in  any 
House  of  Representatives.  The  irreconcilables  were 
determined  to  force  the  president  of  the  Senate  to 
receive  the  certificate,  and  then  to  have  the  two  certi 
ficates  referred  to  the  Commission.  A  resolution  to 
that  effect  was  introduced  by  Poppleton,  but  he  shortly 
after  accepted  a  substitute  of  the  same  tenor  offered 
by  J.  Proctor  Knott  of  Kentucky.4  But  the  speaker 
was  determined  that  the  count  should  proceed,  and 
therefore  ruled  that  under  the  law  the  two  hours'  de 
bate  upon  Vermont  should  begin.  Then  ensued  a 
scene  of  the  wildest  excitement.  Every  possible  de 
vice  was  resorted  to  by  the  filibusters.  The  speaker 
was  assailed  "with  a  storm  of  questions  and  re 
proaches.  Would  he  not  then  put  a  motion  for  a 
recess  ?  A  motion  for  a  call  of  the  House  ?  A  motion 
to  excuse  some  member  from  voting?  A  motion  to 
reconsider?  A  motion  to  lay  something  on  the  table? 
He  would  not.  Were  not  these  motions  in  order 
under  the  rules?  They  were.  Would  he  not  then 
submit  some  one  of  them  to  the  House?  He  would 


1  Proceedings,    714-717. 

2  Record,   2002-2004. 

3  Ibid,   2024-2027. 

4  Ibid,  pp.  2027  and  2032. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  277 

not.  Was  he  not  an  oppressor,  a  tyrant,  a  despot? 
He  was  not.  Would  he  not  then  put  some  dilatory 
motion?  He  would  not.  Why  would  he  not?  Be 
cause  of  his  obligation  to  the  law."  1 

The  occasion  was  rendered  the  more  noisy  and  ex 
citing  by  the  presence  on  the  floor  of  many  persons 
who  had  no  right  there  and  by  the  fact  that  the  gal 
leries  were  packed  with  a  crowd  who  wildly  applauded 
each  outbreak.  Furthermore,  some  even  of  the  con 
servative  Democrats  were  angry  and  suspicious  be 
cause  the  irregular  certificate  had  temporarily  disap 
peared.  At  one  time  the  wrath  of  the  filibusters  be 
came  so  great  that  they  rushed  forward  shouting  and 
gesticulating;  and  one  of  them,  Beebe  of  New  York, 
even  sprang  upon  a  desk,  and,  amid  great  uproar,  de 
manded  of  the  Chair  why  he  declined  to  hear  an 
appeal.  Pale  but  resolute,  Mr.  Randall  still  refused 
to  recede,  and  declared  that  he  would  no  longer  sub 
mit  to  the  disorder.  "If  gentlemen  forget  themselves," 
said  he,  "it  is  the  duty  of  the  Chair  to  remind  them 
that  they  are  members  of  the  American  Congress."  2 

After  some  further  disorder  the  House  quieted 
down  sufficiently  for  the  debate  to  proceed.  None  of 
the  speeches  made  possessed  any  importance  save  one ; 
it  was  made  by  Levy  of  Louisiana,  who,  remembering 
the  Wormley  compact,  was  anxious  to  stop  the  filibus 
tering.  "The  people  of  Louisiana,"  said  he,  "have 
solemn,  earnest,  and  I  believe  truthful  assurances  from 


1  Atlantic,  LXXII,  p.  533.     The  passage  was  written  by  James 
Monroe,  who  was  then  a  member  of  the  House  from  Ohio. 

2  Record,  pp.    2033-2034. 

19 


278  The  Hayes-Tilden 

prominent  members  of  the  Republican  party,  high  in 
the  confidence  of  Mr.  Hayes,  that,  in  the  event  of  his 
election  to  the  Presidency,  he  will  be  guided  by  a 
policy  of  conciliation  toward  the  Southern  states,  that 
he  will  not  use  the  Federal  authority  or  the  army  to 
force  upon  those  states  governments  not  of  their 
choice,  but  in  the  case  of  these  states  will  leave  their 
own  people  to  settle  the  matter  peaceably,  of  them 
selves.  This,  too,  is  the  opinion  of  President  Grant, 
which  he  freely  expresses,  and  which  I  am  satisfied  he 
will  carry  out  and  adhere  to."  Levy  then  announced 
that  because  of  these  assurances  he  would  throw  no 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  completion  of  the  count, 
and  he  called  upon  fellow-members  who  had  been  in 
fluenced  in  their  action  by  a  desire  to  protect  Louisiana 
and  South  Carolina  to  join  him  in  opposing  the  fili 
busters.  1 

Shortly  after  this  speech  was  made  a  vote  was  taken 
on  Knott's  resolution  regarding  the  bogus  certifi 
cate.  It  was  the  decisive  moment.  If  the  resolution 
was  carried,  there  was  no  telling  what  might  hap 
pen.  There  seemed  to  be  danger  that  it  might  be 
carried.  Now  that  the  end  was  at  hand  many  con 
servative  Democrats,  badgered  by  their  constituents 
for  having  supported  the  Commission  plan,  felt  des 
perate  enough  to  vote  with  the  filibusters.  But  some 
of  those  members  who  were  fully  cognizant  of  the 
agreement  hurried  about  the  hall  appealing  to  their 
fellows  to  vote  in  the  negative;  Hewitt  and  others 


1  Record,   p.    2047. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  279 

were  brought  over;1  enough  other  Democrats  were 
sober-minded  sufficiently  not  to  stultify  the  party  by  re 
fusing  to  carry  out  the  terms  of  a  law  which  they 
had  themselves  helped  to  pass ;  and  the  resolution  was 
finally  voted  down  by  116  to  148. 2 

With  this  vote  the  possibility  of  defeating  the  com 
pletion  of  the  count  disappeared.  The  strength  of  the 
filibusters  rapidly  decreased.  After  some  further  de 
lay  the  House  voted  to  reject  the  vote  of  the  post 
master-elector.  3  The  Senate  once  more  entered  the 
hall.  The  irreconcilables  in  their  desperation  even 
attempted  to  get  up  an  objection  to  receiving  the  vote 
of  one  of  the  Virginia  electors,  but  no  senator  would 
lend  himself  to  the  scheme.  4  The  votes  of  Virginia 
were  therefore  counted;  then  those  of  West  Virginia. 
Wisconsin  was  reached.  A  final  objection  was  then 
offered;  it  alleged  that  Daniel  L.  Downs,  one  of  the 
electors,  was  an  examining  surgeon  of  the  pension 
office  and  was  therefore  ineligible.  5  The  two  houses 


1  Speech  of  Hewitt  in  45th  Cong.  2d  Sess.   (Record,  p.  1007)  ; 
McClure's,  XXIII,    p.    87.     Hewitt  later  boasted   that  he   forced 
the  Republicans  to  make  concessions  by  his  policy  in  the  matter 
of  the  Vermont  return,  and  claimed  that  Levy  came  in  just  at 
this   time   from  the  Wormley   conference.     This   was   impossible, 
for  Levy  had  just  spoken.     The  assurances  were  exacted  before 
Hewitt  became  a  filibuster,  and  Hewitt  misrepresented  his  part 
in  the  affair  either  through  ignorance  or  in  order  to  lessen  Dem 
ocratic  criticism   levelled  against  him  for  his   failure   to   secure 
the    seating    of    Tilden.     On    Feb.    28th    Burke    telegraphed    to 
Nicholls:     "Recent  strength  filibusters   spasmodic. — Our  leaders 
have   now   no   defined   policy   except  prospect   of   anarchy,    some 
other    Republican,    or    new    election."     On    March    1st    he    tele 
graphed:     "The  weary  struggle  of  aimless  filibusters  continues." 
—See  copies  of  the  dispatches  in  H.   R.   Mis.   Doc.  No.   31,   45th 
Cong.    3d    Sess.,    Ill,    pp.    624-625. 

2  Record,  p.  2049. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   2049-2055. 

4  World,  March  3d. 

5  Proceedings,  pp.   722-725. 


280  The  Hayes-Tilden 

separated.  The  Senate,  without  debate  and  without  a 
division,  agreed  that  the  vote  of  Downs  should  be 
received. 1  In  the  house  the  filibusters  made  a  last 
effort.  Mills  of  Texas  claimed  the  floor  to  submit,  as 
a  question  of  privilege,  a  resolution  that  the  House 
should  immediately  proceed  to  elect  a  President  of 
the  United  States.  2  The  resolution  was  not  allowed 
to  come  to  a  vote.  Dilatory  motions  were  not  enter 
tained.  The  indignation  on  the  part  of  the  filibusters 
against  their  Democratic  brethren  who  refused  to  join 
them  rose  high.  O'Brien  caller  Fernando  Wood 
"the  high  priest  of  the  Republican  party."  3  At  length 
the  debate  on  Wisconsin  began.  After  midnight  on 
the  morning  of  the  2d  Blackburn  of  Kentucky  rose 
and  delivered  the  swan-song  of  the  filibusters. 

"Mr.  Speaker,"  said  he,  "the  end  has  come.  There 
is  no  longer  a  margin  for  argument,  and  manhood 
spurns  the  plea  of  mercy,  and  yet  there  is  a  fitness  in 
the  hour  which  should  not  pass  unheeded.  Today  is 
Friday.  Upon  that  day  the  Saviour  of  the  world  suf 
fered  crucifixion  between  two  thieves.  On  this  Friday 
constitutional  government,  justice,  honesty,  fair  deal 
ing,  manhood,  and  decency  suffer  crucifixion  amid  a 
number  of  thieves."  [Applause  on  the  floor  and  in  the 
galleries]. 

The  passage  was  not  to  go  unanswered.  After  the 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  had  finished,  Mr.  Williams 
of  Wisconsin  arose.  "I  do  not  desire,"  said  he,  "to 

1  Record,  p.  2029. 

2  Ibid,   pp.    2055-2056. 

3  Ibid,  p.   2057. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  281 

retort  in  the  spirit  indulged  in  by  the  gentleman  who 
has  just  taken  his  seat.  But  if  I  did  I  might  remind 
him  and  this  House  that  this  is  not  only  Friday  but 
hangman's  day;  and  that  there  could  be  no  more  fit 
ting  time  than  just  after  the  hour  of  midnight 

'When  churchyards  yawn,  and  Hell  itself 

breathes  out 

Contagion  to  this  world.' 

that  this  bogus,  pretentious,  bastard  brat  of  political 
reform,  which  for  the  last  twelve  months  has  affronted 
the  eyes  of  gods  and  men  should  be  strangled  to  death, 
gibbetted  higher  than  Haman."  [Great  applause  on 
the  floor  and  in  the  galleries].1 

The  end  was  indeed  come.  After  a  little  more  delay 
the  House  voted  to  reject  the  vote  of  Downs  ;  and  then 
the  speaker,  having  received  a  telegram  from  Tilden 
expressing  his  willingness  that  the  count  should  be 
completed, 2  sent  a  messenger  to  the  Senate  to  an 
nounce  that  the  House  would  once  more  receive  them. 

It  was  now  four  o'clock  in  the  morning,  but  the 
galleries  still  contained  a  crowd  of  tired  sightseers 
anxious  to  witness  the  final  scene  in  the  great  contest 
which  had  so  long  absorbed  the  attention  of  the  Amer 
ican  people.  The  session  had  lasted  continuously  for 
eighteen  hours,  and  the  members  were  too  weary  to 
make  much  of  a  demonstration  of  any  sort.  The  Re 
publicans  were  happy  but  not  exultant;  the  Demo- 

1  Record,   p.    2062. 

2  McClure's,  .XXIII,   p.    87.     This   statement   is   made   by   Mr. 
Rogers  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Hewitt  and  confirmed  from  other 
sources. 


282  The  Hayes-Tilden 

crats  disappointed  but  on  the  whole  good-humored. 
The  occasion  was  an  extraordinary  but  by  no  means 
a  solemn  one.  It  was  relieved  by  a  final  bit  of  pleas 
antry.  While  the  House  was  waiting  a  Democratic 
member  shouted  to  Henry  Watterson  to  bring  on  his 
"hundred  thousand."1 

The  hundred  thousand  did  not  appear;  instead  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  filed  into  the  room  in  the 
usual  manner.  After  the  members  were  seated  the 
decisions  in  the  case  of  the  Wisconsin  elector  were 
announced,  and  the  votes  of  the  state  were  counted. 
Senator  Allison,  one  of  the  tellers,  then  read  the  list 
of  all  the  votes,  after  which/ the  president  of  the  Sen 
ate  arose  to  make  the  concluding  statement. 

"In  announcing  the  final  result  of  the  electoral  vote," 
said  he,  "the  Chair  trusts  that  all  present,  whether 
on  the  floor  or  in  the  galleries,  will  refrain  from  all 
demonstration  whatever;  that  nothing  shall  transpire 
on  this  occasion  to  mar  the  dignity  and  moderation 
which  have  characterized  these  proceedings,  in  the 
main  so  reputable  to  the  American  people  and  worthy 
of  the  respect  of  the  world." 

Then,  after  announcing  the  total  vote  received  by 
each  candidate,  he  continued : 

"Wherefore,  I  do  declare:  That  Rutherford  B. 
Hayes,  of  Ohio,  having  received  a  majority  of  the 
whole  number  of  electoral  votes,  is  duly  elected  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  for  four  years,  commencing 
on  the  4th  day  of  March,  1877.^  And  that  William 

1  World,    March    3d. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  283 

A.  Wheeler,  of  New  York,  having  received  a  ma 
jority  of  the  whole  number  of  electoral  votes,  is  duly 
elected  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  for  four 
years,  commencing  on  the  4th  day  of  March,  1877." 
Soon  thereafter  the  Senate  retired  to  its  chamber. 
The  galleries  were  quickly  emptied.  The  House  it 
self  adjourned. 1  The  greatest  contest  for  an  elective 
office  in  the  history  of  popular  government  had  been 
peacefully  concluded. 


1  Record,  pp.  2067-2068. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE    ADJUSTMENT    IN    THE    SOUTH 

In  the  days  preceding  the  final  declaration  of  the 
result  the  bitterness  of  party  feeling  was  so  intense 
that  not  a  few  hot-headed  partisans  had  sworn  that 
even  if  "counted  in,"  Hayes  should  never  be  inaug 
urated.  A  Washington  newspaper,  namely  The  Cap 
ital,  edited  by  Don.  Piatt,  went  so  far  as  practically 
to  counsel  his  assassination. 1  The  President-elect  re 
ceived  many  letters  containing  threats  of  violence  and 
"curiously  drawn  sketches  of  knives,  daggers  and  re 
volvers/'  2 

That  there  was  no  untoward  incident  during  the 
long  strain  of  waiting  or  after  the  result  had  been 
declared  was  unquestionably  due  in  large  measure  to 
the  firm  hand  of  President  Grant.  His  course  during 
the  whole  trying  crisis  had  been  one  which  in  the 
main  merits  the  gratitude  of  his  countrymen.  His 


1  In  issue  of  Feb.  18th.     Quoted  in  New  York  Times  of  19th. 

2  Quoted  in  Record,  p.   1934,  from  a  speech  made  by  Hayes. 
One  package,  sent  it  would  seem  with  no  very  serious  intentions, 
contained  "a  knife  about  two  feet  long,  one  edge  hacked  like  a 
saw,    probably   for   sawing   the   bone,    the   other   for   cutting  the 
flesh.     This  was  wrapped   in   several   thicknesses  of  paper,   and 
inside  was  a  note,  as  follows : 

"  'This  is  the  knife  with  which  the  editor  of  the  Capital  was 
to  assassinate  you  as  you  went  from  the  White  House  to 
the  Capitol.  It  was  taken  from  his  pants  leg  while  asleep'." 


The  Disputed  Election   of  1876     285 

sending  of  troops  to  the  disputed  states  brought  upon 
him  a  storm  of  criticism,  and  the  use  to  which  they 
were  put  in  at  least  one  instance  would  be  difficult  to 
justify;  but  it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that  their 
presence  in  all  human  probability  prevented  bloody 
collisions  that  might  have  led  to  yet  more  lamentable 
consequences.  Throughout  he  had  labored  for  a 
peaceful  and  legal  settlement. 1  While  in  some  things 
he  showed  himself  perhaps  too  much  the  partisan,  he 
afterwards  said  that  had  Tilden  been  declared  elected 
he  would  have  been  quite  as  energetic  in  securing 
Tilden's  inauguration  as  he  was  in  securing  that  of 
Hayes.  Unlike  Buchanan,  Grant  "was  quite  prepared 
for  any  contingency.  Any  outbreak  would  have  been 
suddenly  and  summarily  stopped."  He  "did  not  in 
tend  to  have  two  governments  or  any  South  American 
pronunciamentos."  2 

Thus  when  a  rumor  spread  abroad  that  Tilden  in 
tended  to  be  sworn  into  office  in  New  York,  the  Pres 
ident  caused  steps  to  be  taken  to  declare  martial  law 
in  that  city  in  case  the  attempt  should  be  made. 3 
As  it  turned  out,  these  preparations  were  utterly  need 
less.  Mr.  Tilden  was  far  from  possessing  the  tem 
perament  of  a  revolutionist.  Although  some  irrespon 
sible  persons  urged  him  to  take  the  oath  and  later 
criticised  him  for  not  taking  it,  and  although  on  the 
3d  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  a  resolution 

1  Church,   Life  of  Grant,  pp.   420-421. 

2  Young,  Around  the  World  with  General  Grant,   II,  pp.   270- 
272.     See  also  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  Ill, 
pp.  884-885. 

3  Church,  p.   421. 


286  The  Hayes-Tilden 

declaring  he  had  received  196  electoral  votes  and  "was 
thereby  duly  elected  President/' 1  he  saw  clearly  that 
he  had  no  claim  which  would  justify  him  in  taking 
a  course  that  would  inevitably  lead  to  civil  war.  There 
were,  in  fact,  only  two  contingencies  under  which  he 
would  have  asserted  his  claims:  if  Congress  had  de 
clared  him  elected,  or  if  the  House,  on  the  failure  of 
a  choice  by  the  electoral  colleges,  had  elected  him. 
"No  contingency  provided  by  the  Constitution,"  said 
one  of  his  closest  friends,  "ever  existed  in  which  Mr. 
Tilden  could  lawfully  or  properly  take  the  oath  of 
office  as  President."  2 

So,  despite  the  fact  that  some  Democratic  news 
papers,  such  as  the  New  York  Sun  and  the  Indian 
apolis  Sentinel,  came  out  in  mourning  and  said  much 
about  "usurpers"  and  "the  de  facto  President,"  Mr. 
Hayes  was  peacefully  installed.  He  started  for  Wash 
ington  before  the  result  was  finally  declared,  reached 
that  city  on  March  2d,  and  was  entertained  at  the 
home  of  Senator  Sherman.  As  the  4th  fell  on  Sun 
day,  there  was  much  curiosity  and  some  uneasiness 
throughout  the  country  regarding  what  means  would 
be  taken  to  guard  against  the  danger  of  an  interreg 
num.  President  Grant  had  taken  it  upon  himself  to 
solve  this  problem.  On  Saturday  night,  the  3d,  in 
accordance  with  an  invitation  written  on  the  2Oth  of 
February  after  the  decision  of  the  Louisiana  case,  the 
President-elect  dined  at  the  White  House.  Among  the 


1  Record,  pp.  2225-2227. 

2  Bigelow,    Tilden,    II,    pp.    112-115.     Mr.    Bigelow    gave    this 
statement  to  a  reporter  at  the  time. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  287 

guests  present  was  Chief  Justice  Waite.  In  the  course 
of  the  evening  General  Grant  sent  his  son  Ulysses 
for  a  Bible.  The  two  Grants,  Mr.  Waite,  and  Mr. 
Hayes  then  repaired  to  an  unoccupied  room,  and  there 
the  chief  justice  administered  the  oath. x  On  Mon 
day,  the  5th,  the  new  President  was  formally  inaug 
urated. 

One  of  his  first  and  most  trying  tasks  was  to  estab 
lish  peace  in  the  South.  In  order  that  the  aspects  of 
the  settlement  which  was  finally  reached  may  be  made 
clear,  it  will  be  necessary  to  go  back  in  time  and  con 
sider  at  some  length  certain  events  hitherto  only  refer 
red  to. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  in  South  Carolina  the  board 
of  canvassers,  before  its  hasty  dissolution  to  avoid 
the  action  of  the  court,  had  thrown  out  the  votes  of 
the  counties  of  Edgefield  and  Laurens  because  of  gross 
frauds  at  the  polls.  Their  canvass  showed  the  election 
of  all  the  Republican  candidates  for  state  offices  ex 
cepting  for  the  governorship  and  lieutenant-govern 
orship,  the  returns  for  which  were  by  law  to  be  can 
vassed  by  the  legislature;  the  choice  of  a  House  of 
Representatives  composed  of  59  Republicans  and  57 
Democrats,  with  eight  vacancies  from  the  two  counties 
just  named;  and  the  election  of  enough  Republican 
senators  to  give  that  party,  with  two  vacancies  from 
the  same  counties,  a  majority  of  five.  2 

The  legislature  met  on  Tuesday,  the  28th  of  No- 

1  Statement  of  Col.  Webb  C.  Hayes. 

2  Appendix  to  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.  pp. 
118-122. 


288  The  Hayes-Til  den 

vember.  On  the  night  before  a  company  of  United 
States  troops  had  occupied  the  Capitol,  and  these  now 
assisted  A.  O.  Jones,  clerk  of  the  last  House,  and  John 
B.  Dennis,  who  claimed  to  be  acting  as  sergeant-at- 
arms,  in  excluding  the  Democratic  claimants  from 
Edgefield  and  Laurens  from  the  hall  of  the  House. 
The  Democratic  representatives,  with  one  temporary 
exception,  thereupon  withdrew  to  the  hall  of  a  rifle 
company  and  organized  with  General  W.  H.  Wallace 
of  Union  as  speaker.  The  Republicans  remained  and 
organized  with  E.  W.  M.  Mackey  of  Charleston  as 
speaker.  The  important  question  then  arose  as  to 
which  body,  if  either,  possessed  a  legal  quorum  of  the 
members.  The  Democrats  claimed  to  have  66  of  the 
124  members,  but  of  these  66  only  57  had  been  de 
clared  elected  by  the  canvassing  board  and  held  cer 
tificates  from  the  secretary  of  state.  The  Republi 
cans,  on  the  other  hand,  had  59  certified  members, 
and  this  number,  they  claimed,  was  a  quorum  of  the 
116  members  who  had  been  chosen.1  The  Senate, 
with  Lieutenant-Governor  Gleaves  in  the  chair,  organ 
ized  with  much  less  disturbance  and  with  all  hold 
over  members,  and  every  newly  elected  member  who 
had  a  certificate,  present.  The  Democratic  claimants 
from  Edgefield  and  Laurens  and  a  person  who  had 
been  elected  to  fill  the  vacancy  occasioned  bv  the  death 


1  See  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  100- 
104,  126-129,  138-140  for  the  official  journals  and  other  papers 
bearing  on  these  occurrences.  Also  The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.  337  ; 
Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,  pp.  725-726 ;  Allen,  pp.  436-441 ; 
Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  p.  66. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  289 

of  a  hold-over  senator  from  Abbeville  county  were 
also  present  but  were  not  allowed  to  vote.  *• 

The  Democrats  protested  vehemently  against  the 
use  which  had  been  made  of  the  troops  and  managed 
to  secure  from  General  Ruger  assurances  that  in  the 
future  his  men  would  confine  themselves  to  preserv 
ing  the  peace  and  would  not  assist  in  keeping  the 
doors  of  the  House.  2  On  the  morning  of  the  3Oth, 
therefore,  the  Democratic  representatives  all  marched 
to  the  Capitol,  and  reached  that  building  before  many 
of  the  Republican  members  had  arrived.  Some  of  the 
Democrats  who  had  certificates  were  allowed  to  enter ; 
when  they  had  done  so,  they  turned,  flung  open  the 
doors,  placed  their  backs  against  them,  and  thereby, 
despite  desperate  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  doorkeepers, 
enabled  all  the  Democratic  claimants,  including  those 
without  certificates,  to  get  inside.  Shortly  afterwards 
the  remaining  Republican  members  appeared,  and  a 
scene  of  great  confusion  ensued  which  in  all  human 
probability  would  have  resulted  in  bloodshed,  had  it 
not  been  for  the  restraining  influence  exercised  upon 
the  Democrats  by  the  presence  of  the  troops.  3 

For  more  than  four  days  both  bodies  remained  con 
tinuously  within  the  hall,  endeavoring  from  time  to 
time  to  transact  business,  with  dual  speakers  and  fre 
quently  with  dual  debates.  In  this  contest  each  side 
had  some  advantages.  It  was,  says  a  South  Caro- 


1  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  104-109. 

2  Southern   Historical   Society   Papers,  XIII,    p.    69 ;    Annual 
Cyclopaedia,  1876,  p.   726. 

3  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  101,  141; 
New   York   Herald   for  Dec.    1st. 


290  The  Hayes-Tilden 

linian,  hard  service  for  the  Democrats  "to  be  thus 
shut  up  with  these  unwashed  'wards  of  the  nation' 
sending  forth  a  stifling  native  perfume,  when  the  pierc 
ing  cold  without  prevented  necessary  ventilation.  Sleep 
ing,  too,  on  dirty  floors,  each  with  a  single  blanket, 
would  read  well  in  a  story  of  martyrdom,  but  their 
heads  and  frames  ached  nevertheless.  In  all  this  the 
negroes  had  the  great  advantage,  as  they  were  just 
in  their  element.  The  perfume  served  but  to  stimu 
late  them  to  song  and  jollity,  and  a  blanket  big  enough 
to  cover  the  head  was  all  that  each  needed.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  eating  and  drinking,  the  whites  had 
the  incalculable  advantage.  While  Sambo  was  munch 
ing  his  hardtack  and  cheese,  he  had  to  gaze  wistfully 
on  baskets  and  boxes  of  fruit,  and  tempting  viands, 
furnished  the  other  side  in  profusion  by  the  rebel- 
sympathizing  merchants  of  Columbia  and  Charleston."1 
Ultimately,  however,  the  outcome  of  this  novel  contest 
did  not  depend  upon  endurance ;  for  the  Democrats 
learned  that  on  the  afternoon  of  the  4th  a  constab 
ulary  force,  backed  up  by  the  troops,  would  attempt 
to  eject  the  claimants  from  Edgefield  and  Laurens, 
and  rather  than  submit  to  this  all  the  Democrats  once 
more  withdrew  to  their  former  meeting-place. 2 

On  the  following  day  the  Senate  and  the  Republican 
House,  which  had  now  by  desertion  lost  its  quorum, 
met  in  joint  convention  and  proceeded  to  canvass  the 
votes  for  governor  and  lieutenant-governor.  In  do- 


1  Leland,  p.   170. 
2  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  101,  142. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  291 

ing  so  they  threw  out  the  returns  from  Edgefield  and 
Laurens  on  the  plea  of  violence  and  fraud,  and  de 
clared  Chamberlain  and  Cleaves  elected  by  majorities 
of  3,145  and  4,099  votes  respectively.1  Two  days 
later  the  two  were  inaugurated.  2 

Meanwhile  the  Democrats  had  attempted  to  secure 
a  mandamus  to  compel  Speaker  Mackey  to  give  up  the 
election  returns  for  governor  and  lieutenant-govern 
or.  The  supreme  court  held,  however,  that  a  man 
damus  would  issue  only  against  a  public  officer,  and 
that,  as  Mackey  was  not  speaker  of  the  House,  the 
writ  could  not  be  issued  against  him.  The  decision 
was  favorable  to  the  Democrats  in  that  it  recognized 
the  Wallace  House,  which  had  now  been  increased 
by  desertions  from  the  Republican  camp  to  63  mem 
bers  having  certificates ;  but  it  was  unfavorable  in 
that  it  still  left  them  without  the  official  returns. B 
Nevertheless,  on  the  I4th  the  Democratic  House,  to 
gether  with  the  Democratic  senators,  proceeded  to 
canvass  the  votes,  using  in  that  work  tabular  state 
ments  made  from  the  county  returns  and  from  re 
turns  which  had  been  in  the  possession  of  the  board 
of  state  canvassers.  As  the  result  of  their  labors 
they  announced  the  election  of  Hampton  and  Simpson, 
the  candidate  for  lieutenant-governor,  by  majorities 
of  1,134  and  139  votes  respectively.  On  the  after- 

1  H.  R.  R.  No.  175,  Part  2,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.,  pp.  114-121. 

2  Ibid,  pp.    136-138. 

3  For  court  proceedings  see  Appendix  to  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No. 
31,   44th  Cong.   2d   Sess.,   pp.   137   et  seq.     The  petition  was  also 
directed  against   Secretary   of   State   Hayne,    but  he   had   turned 
over  the   returns   to   Mackey.     See   also   Southern  Historical   So 
ciety  Papers,  XIII,  p.  70,  and  The  Nation,  XXIII,  pp.   338,   348. 


292  The  Hayes-Tilden 

noon  of  the  same  day  these  two  also  were  inaugu 
rated.  ! 

r~  Both  governments  asserted  their  claim  to  be  the 
l  legal  authority  of  the  state,  and  peace  was  preserved 
only  by  the  presence  of  the  Federal  troops.  Not 
long  after  his  inauguration  Chamberlain  attempted  to 
pardon  a  prisoner  in  the  penitentiary,  with  the  result 
that  the  question  of  his  right  to  the  office  of  governor 
was  brought  up  before  Circuit  Judge  Carpenter.  On 
the  ist  of  February  the  judge  held  that  the  recent 
proceedings  gave  neither  Chamberlain  nor  Hampton  a 
legal  title  and  that  Chamberlain,  as  the  former  gov 
ernor,  should  hold  over  until  his  successor  had  been 
legally  declared  and  inaugurated. 2  An  appeal  was 
taken  to  the  supreme  court,  but  before  it  was  tried 
a  new  case  came  up  before  that  court  as  a  result  of 
an  attempt  of  Hampton  to  pardon  Tilda  Norris,  an 
other  convict.  After  a  long  trial  and  much  delay 
nothing  remained  save  to  pronounce  judgment;  but 
at  this  juncture  Chief  Justice  Moses  was  stricken 
with  an  illness  from  which  he  never  recovered,  thus 
leaving  but  two  judges,  one  being  the  negro  Wright. 
On  the  27th  of  February  an  order  was  finally  signed 
for  the  release  of  Norris,  but  Wright  asked  that  the 
filing  and  publication  might  be  delayed  for  a  few  days, 
and  Justice  Willard  consented.  Two  days  later 
Wright,  upon  whom  all  possible  influences  had  been 
brought  to  bear  in  the  meantime,  filed  an  opinion  favor- 

1  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1876,,  pp.  726-727;  H.  R.  R.  No.   175, 
Part    2,    44th    Cong.    2d    Sess.,    pp.    154-157. 

2  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  p.   72. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  293 

able  to  the  legality  of  Chamberlain's  claims  and  with 
drew  his  signature  from  the  order.  Thus,  although 
the  convict  was  freed  next  day,  the  judgment  of  the 
court  upon  the  merits  of  the  claims  of  Chamberlain 
and  Hampton  was  not  entirely  clear. l 

However,  the  Hampton  government  had  all  the 
while  been  growing  stronger,  that  of  Chamberlain 
weaker.  The  supreme  court  had  granted  an  injunc 
tion  forbidding  the  banks  which  were  depositories  of 
public  money  from  paying  it  out  until  further  orders 
from  the  courts;  and  as  property  owners  almost  uni 
formly  refused  to  recognize  the  authority  of  the  Cham 
berlain  government,  the  Republicans  were  left  without 
the  sinews  of  war. 2  In  this  respect  the  Democrats 
were  more  fortunate.  Their  House  appealed  to  the 
people  to  pay  to  such  receivers  as  Hampton  should 
appoint  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  taxes 
levied  the  preceding  year.  The  appeal  was  answered 
with  enthusiasm,  and  enough  money  was  received  to 
keep  the  government  running.  3  In  most  of  the  coun 
ties  the  Democrats  were  strong  enough  to  have  their 
own  way,  and  even  at  the  Capital  there  were  desertions 
from  the  Republican  ranks.  By  the  4th  of  March, 
therefore,  the  Chamberlain  government  had  dwindled 
to  a  mere  shadow,  and  was  saved  from  disappearing 
entirely  only  by  the  presence  of  the  troops.  4 


1  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,   p.   73  ;    The  Na 
tion,  XXIV,   p.   141;  New  York  Herald  of  March   2d ;   Reynolds, 
p.    467. 

2  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  p.   71. 

3  Ibid,  pp.    71-72;   H.   R.   R.   No.   175,   Part  2,    44th  Cong.    2d 
Sess.,  pp.  163-167;   The  Nation,  XXIII,  p.   376.     Hampton  asked 
for    only    10    per   cent. 

4  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  XIII,  p.  83. 
20 


294  The  Hayes-Tilden 

The  situation  of  affairs  in  Louisiana  can  be  ex 
plained  in  fewer  words.  On  January  1st,  the  day 
for  the  assembling  of  the  legislature,  the  state  house 
was  by  Governor  Kellogg's  orders  occupied  by  armed 
police  and  militia,  and  no  persons  were  admitted  to 
the  legislative  halls  except  those  having  certificates 
from  the  returning  board.  The  Democratic  members 
therefore  withdrew  to  St.  Patrick's  Hall  and  organ 
ized  separately,  admitting  not  only  those  having  cer 
tificates,  but  also  those  declared  elected  by  the  so- 
called  Democratic  Committee  on  Returns.  The  Re 
publican  members  remained  and  organized  with  19 
senators  and  68  representatives,  which  was,  they 
claimed,  a  quorum  in  each  House.  The  Democratic 
legislature  consisted  of  21  senators  and  62  repre 
sentatives,  but  of  these  4  senators  and  22  repre 
sentatives  had  no  certificates  save  from  the  Democratic 
committee.  On  the  following  day  the  Republican 
legislature  in  joint  session,  with,  they  claimed,  a 
quorum  in  each  House,  received  the  election  returns 
from  the  secretary  of  state,  and  declared  Packard  and 
Antoine  elected;  the  Democratic  legislature  on  the 
same  day  announced  the  election  of  Nicholls  and  Wiltz. 
On  the  8th  the  Republican  claimants  were  inaugurated 
at  the  Capitol ;  the  Democratic  claimants  at  St.  Pat 
rick's  Hall.  Next  day  a  large  force  of  armed  White 
Leaguers,  under  pretense  of  acting  as  the  state  militia, 
gained  possession  of  the  police  station  and  court 
rooms,  installed  Democratic  appointees  as  judges  of 
the  supreme  court,  captured  the  state  arsenal,  block- 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  295 

aded  the  state  house,  and  would  doubtless  have  over 
thrown  the  Packard  government  entirely  had  it  not 
been  for  the  interference  of  United  States  troops. l 
From  that  time  on  until  March  the  Federal  govern 
ment,  without  recognizing  either  claimant,  preserved 
the  status  quo.  As  in  South  Carolina,  the  authority 
of  the  Republicans  grew  weaker  and  weaker ;  some  of 
the  parishes  slipped  out  of  their  grasp,  and  there 
were  numerous  desertions  from  their  legislature;  the 
causes  of  this  decline  in  their  strength  lay  in  the 
fact  that  their  opponents  were  supported  by  the  great 
mass  of  property  owners  and  taxpayers  and  by  prac 
tically  the  whole  of  the  stronger  white  race. 2 

Such  then,  was  the  situation  in  these  two  states 
when  Hayes  came  to  power.  The  South  Carolina 
problem  was  the  first  solved.  The  initial  step  in  its 
solution  was  a  letter  written  on  the  4th  of  March  to 
Chamberlain  by  Stanley  Matthews  and  indorsed  by 
William  M.  Evarts,  who  had  been  selected  by  Hayes 
as  his  secretary  of  state.  The  letter  asked  the  gov 
ernor's  concurrence  and  co-operation  in  some  arrange 
ment  whereby  the  continued  use  of  Federal  troops 
might  be  rendered  unnecessary  and  that  government 
left  to  stand  which  should  prove  itself  able  to  stand 


1  My    account   of    these    matters    is    based   upon    files    of    the 
World,  Herald,  and  Times ;  the  legislative  journals ;  a  pamphlet 
entitled  Legal   Status  of  the  Louisiana  State  Government,  pub 
lished  by  the  Packard  legislature ;  another  entitled  Organization 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  published  by  the  adherents  of 
Nicholls ;   testimony  of  Burke,  Packard,   Kellogg,  and  others  be 
fore  the  Potter  Committee. 

2  See  H.   R.    Mis.   Doc.   No.    31,   45th  Cong.    3d   Sess.,   Ill,   pp. 
603-631. 


296  The  Hayes-Tilden 

of  itself. l  The  proposal  was  indignantly  rejected  by 
Chamberlain,  and  no  further  steps  of  importance  were 
taken  for  a  fortnight.  On  the  23d  of  March,  how 
ever,  duplicate  letters  were  by  the  President's  order 
addressed  to  both  claimants  asking  them  to  come  to 
Washington  and  confer  with  the  President  upon  the 
situation. 2  Both  complied  with  the  request,  and 
while  in  Washington  had  protracted  interviews  with 
the  President  and  members  of  the  cabinet.  Cham 
berlain  and  the  two  South  Carolina  senators  pro 
posed  that  the  election  controversy  be  submitted  to  a 
commission  of  five,  but  the  Democrats  had  lost  faith 
in  commissions,  and  declined  the  offer.  3  By  the  Pres 
ident's  request  the  Republican  claimant  also  set  forth 
in  a  letter  his  objections  to  the  withdrawal  of  the 
troops;  such  action  would,  he  said,  inevitably  result 
in  the  downfall  of  the  Republican  government  before 
the  superior  physical  force  of  its  enemies  and  in  "the 
quick  consummation  of  a  political  outrage  against 
which  I  have  felt  and  now  feel  it  my  solemn  duty  to 
struggle  and  protest  so  long  as  the  faintest  hope  of 
success  can  be  seen."  4  Hampton,  on  his  part,  asked 
that  the  troops  be  withdrawn,  and  gave  pledges  that 
if  it  were  done  no  violence  would  be  used  by  his 
party  and  the  constitutional  rights  of  all  parties  would 
be  respected.  With  the  concurrence  of  the  cabinet, 
the  President  at  last  decided  to  grant  his  request  and 

1  For  this  letter  and  Chamberlain's  reply  see  Allen,  pp.   469 
and  470;  Reynolds,  pp.  451-453. 

2  Allen,    p.    472. 

3  Ibid,  p.   478. 

4  Ibid,  pp.  474-477. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  297 

bring  Federal  interference  in  South  Carolina  to  an 
end. l  On  the  loth  of  April,  therefore,  the  troops 
were  withdrawn  from  the  state  house  to  the  garrison 
post;  on  the  nth  Chamberlain,  who  had  already  an 
nounced  that  he  would  not  prolong  the  contest  further, 
turned  over  the  executive  office  to  a  representative  of 
Hampton;  and,  to  the  great  rejoicing  of  the  white 
inhabitants,  Radical  rule  in  South  Carolina  came  to 
an  end.  2 

The  process  of  settlement  in  Louisiana  was  slower 
and  more  complicated.  In  that  state  the  problem 
which  faced  the  Administration  was  much  more  em 
barrassing  ;  for  while  in  South  Carolina  the  Hayes  elec 
tors  had  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  actually 
cast  and  Chamberlain  had  not,  in  Louisiana  Packard, 
whom  it  was  now  proposed  to  sacrifice,  had  received 
many  hundreds  of  votes  more  than  several  of  the 
electors.  How  then  could  the  Packard  government  be 
allowed  to  fall  and  yet  leave  a  semblance  of  title  to 
Hayes  ?  3  So  perplexing  did  the  problem  prove  that 
after  telegrams  sent  by  President  Grant  on  the  1st 
and  2d  of  March  to  the  effect  that  public  opinion 
would  no  longer  support  the  maintenance  of  state 
governments  in  Louisiana  by  military  force, 4  no 

1  Allen,  p.   479  ;  New  York  Times,  April   3. 

2  Allen,  pp.  480-486  ;  Leland,  p.  173  ;  Southern  Historical  So 
ciety  Papers,  III,   p.    85 ;    Reynolds,   p.   460. 

3  See  Butler's  report  as  a  member  of  the  Potter  Committee, 
H.  R.   R.   No.   140,   45th  Cong.    3d  Sess.,   pp.   113-114. 

4  The  first  telegram  was  sent  by  the  President's  private  secre 
tary  to   Packard  on   March   1st. — H.   R.    Mis.   Doc.   No.    31,    45th 
Cong.   3d   Sess.,   I,  pp.   537,   890,   961,   1041,   III,  p.   33.     The  tele 
gram  was   repeated  to  Gen.  Augur  by  Gen.   Sherman  on  the   2d 
after,  it  has  been  claimed,  Pres.  Grant  had  had  a  personal  inter- 


298  The  Hayes-Til  den 

further  steps  of  importance  were  taken  for  almost 
four  weeks.  Some  of  the  Democrats  who  had  been 
parties  to  the  "bargain"  chafed  exceedingly  under  the 
delay.  By  the  28th  of  March  Mr.  John  Young  Brown 
had  become  so  impatient  that  he  published  the  written 
guarantees  of  Foster  and  Matthews  in  the  Louisville 
Courier- Journal  and  demanded  of  the  President  "ful 
fillment  of  the  assurances"  therein  contained. l 

On  the  same  day,  in  accordance  with  a  plan  he  had 
already  formulated,  2  the  President  appointed  a  com 
mission  to  go  to  Louisiana  and  arrange  matters.  The 
commission  was  composed  of  General  Joseph  R.  Haw- 
ley  of  Connecticut,  Judge  Charles  B.  Lawrence  of 
Illinois,  General  John  M.  Harlan  of  Kentucky,  ex- 
Governor  J.  C.  Brown  of  Tennessee,  and  Wayne  Mac- 
Veagh  of  Pennsylvania.  The  commission  was  direc 
ted  to  proceed  to  Louisiana  and  there  ascertain  what 
were  the  hindrances  to  a  peaceful  conduct  of  the  state 
government  without  the  interference  of  the  Federal 
authority.  They  were  to  devote  their  "principal  at 
tention  to  a  removal  of  the  obstacles  to  an  acknowl 
edgment  of  one  government;"  but  "if  these  obstacles 
should  prove  insuperable  from  whatever  reason,  and 
the  hope  of  a  single  government  in  all  its  departments 
be  disappointed,"  it  was  to  be  their  next  endeavor  to 
accomplish  the  recognition  of  a  single  legislature  as 


view  with  Hayes. — Ibid,  I,  p.  537;  III,  pp.  628-629.  These  tele 
grams  were  intended  to  fulfil  the  agreement,  but  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  they  affected  the  status  then  existing  in  Louisiana. 

1  New  York  Tribune  and  Times  of  March  29th. 

2  Times  of  March   22d. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jd  299 

the  depositary  of  the  representative  will  of  the  people 
of  Louisiana."  * 

Into  all  the  details  of  their  work  it  is  unnecessary  to 
enter  here.  They  reached  New  Orleans  on  the  5th  of 
April,  and  at  once  set  to  work.  The  Democrats  did 
all  in  their  power  to  further  the  performance  of  the 
task.  Their  legislature  passed  conciliatory  resolu 
tions  indorsing  the  President's  policy,  promising  to  ac 
cept  in  good  faith  the  Thirteenth,  Fourteenth,  and  Fif 
teenth  amendments,  and  guaranteeing  school  priv 
ileges  to  both  races ;  these  resolutions  were  transmitted 
by  Nicholls,  along  with  his  own  personal  pledge,  to 
the  commission.  2  The  Democrats  rendered  especially 
effective  aid  in  securing  the  recognition  of  a  single 
legislature,  which  was  the  goal  towards  which  the 
commission  found  it  expedient  to  direct  its  labors. 
The  members  of  the  Packard  legislature  who  had  re 
ceived  majorities  of  the  votes  actually  cast  were  given 
to  understand  that  upon  joining  the  Nicholls  leg 
islature  they  would  receive  $8  per  day  for  their  *pre- 
vious  services  and  forty  cents  per  mile  mileage.  As 
the  Packard  government  was  bankrupt  and  as  most 
of  its  legislators  were  poor  negroes,  the  offer  proved 
in  many  cases  too  strong  to  be  resisted.  3  Some  of] 
the  more  important  leaders  are  said  to  have  been  bribed 
directly  with  money  coming  from  the  Louisiana  Lot- 


1  For  the  full  Instructions,  which  were  written  by  Secretary 
of  State  Evarts,  see  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  97,  45th  Cong.  2d  Sess., 
p.  2. 

2  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  Ill,  p.  28. 

3  Ibid,  I,  pp.   835,   840,   908. 


300  The  Hayes-Tilden 

tery  Company. l  Other  members  who  refused  to  be 
bribed  but  who  feared  for  their  personal  safety  in  case 
they  held  out  resigned,  and  by  the  2ist  of  April  the 
Packard  legislature  had  practically  ceased  to  exist. 2 
j*  Three  days  later  the  troops  were  withdrawn  to  the  post 

below  the  city;  Packard_and  his  remaining  supporters 
gave  up  the  struggle ;  and  the  authority  of  the  Nicholls 
government  was  everywhere  established  without  blood 
shed.  3 

The  settlement  in  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana  was 
not  reached  without  arousing  a  storm  of  protest  in 
the  President's  own  party.  Boutwell  and  Butler  of 
Massachusetts,  W.  E.  Chandler  of  New  Hampshire, 
Blaine  of  Maine,  Wade  of  Ohio,  and  others,  together 
with  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Republican  press, 
denounced  the  President's  policy  in  unmeasured  terms. 
The  failure  of  the  Administration  to  uphold  the  Re 
publican  claimants  was  characterized  as  a  cowardly 
and  treacherous  abandonment  of  the  Republicans  of 
the  South  to  their  bitterest  enemies.  4 

1  H.    R.   Mis.   Doc.   No.    31,    45th   Cong.    3d   Sess.,    Ill,   p.    35; 
H.    R.    R.   No.    140,    45th   Cong.    2d    Sess.,   p.    114;    McClure,    Our 
Presidents   and   How  We  Make  Them,   p.   267. 

2  H.   R.  Ex.  Doc.  No.   97,   45th  Cong.   2d   Sess.,   p.   11;   H.   R. 
Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  p.  460  ;  III,  pp.  10  et  seq. 

3  For  accounts  of  the  whole  Louisiana  situation  see  testimony 
of   Packard,   Burke,    Ellis,    and   others   in   Ibid.        The   testimony 
of  Burke  and  Packard  contains  many  important  documents.     In 
preparing  my  account  I  have  also  used  the  files  of  The  Nation, 
Harper's  Weekly,  The  Times,  Herald,  etc. 

4  See  The  Nation,  XXIV,  pp.  154,  216,  242,  XXV,  p.  117;  Har 
per's  Weekly,  XXI,  pp.   282,   302,   558;   Blaine,   Twenty  Years  of 
Congress,    II,   p.    596 ;    John    Sherman's   Recollections,   I,    p.    586 ; 
Hoar,  Autobiography,  II,  p.  12  ;  Congressional  Record,  45th  Cong, 
special  sess.  of  Senate,  pp.  16,  20,  etc. ;  and  a  pamphlet  by  W.  E. 
Chandler,  entitled  "Can  Such  Things  Be  and  Overcome  Us  Like 
a  Summer  Cloud  without  Our  Special  Wonder?"     The  New  York 
Times  was  one  of  the  most  active  newspapers  in  attacking  the 
Southern   policy. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  301 

Nor  was  this  feeling  unnatural ;  for,  from  whatever 
point  of  view  the  settlements  are  regarded,  they  pre 
sent  some  rather  extraordinary  aspects.  In  the  case 
of  South  Carolina,  to  be  sure,  a  fairly  consistent  de 
fense  could  be  made.  On  the  face  of  the  returns  the 
Hayes  electors  had  been  chosen  while  Chamberlain 
had  not  been;  the  title  given  Chamberlain  by  the  leg 
islature  was  open  to  question ;  the  courts  had  inclined 
to  support  Hampton's  claims;  and  the  Administra 
tion's  part  in  the  Republican  downfall  had  been  con 
fined  to  refusing  to  decide  between  the  claims  of  the 
two  parties  and  to  removing  the  troops  and  thereby 
allowing  the  stronger  claimant  to  take  possession. 
But  in  Louisiana  the  situation  was  more  complicated. 
Upon  the  face  of  the  returns  Packard  had  received  a 
considerably  larger  vote  than  several  of  the  Hayes 
electors,  and  his  claim  had  been  favorably  passed  upon 
by  a  legislature  containing  an  alleged  quorum  of 
members  declared  elected  by  the  same  returning  board 
which  had  canvassed  the  returns  for  the  electors.  A 
possible  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  claim  of 
Packard  was  at  least  as  good  as  that  of  Hayes  would 
be  to  adopt  the  theory  that  since  the  state  constitution 
provided  that  "each  House  of  the  General  Assembly 
shall  judge  of  the  qualifications,  election,  and  re 
turns  of  its  members,"  the  law  conferring  upon 
the  returning  board  the  power  to  canvass  the 
votes  for  members  of  the  Assembly  was  unconstitu 
tional,  and  that  as  a  result  the  legislature  which  had 


302  The  Hayes-Tilden 

declared  Packard  elected  had  not  been  a  legal  one.  1 

Instead,  however,  of  taking  the  attitude  that  Pack 

ard  and  he  should  stand  or  fall  together,  the  Presi- 

f  dent  had,  through  a  commission  sent  to  Louisiana  for 

l  that  purpose,  worked  to  overthrow  Packard  and  his 

\  government.  2 

But  there  are  other  aspects  of  the  case  which  must 
be  considered  before  any  final  conclusions  are  drawn. 
While  the  title  of  Packard  may  have  been  fully  as 
good  as  that  of  Hayes,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow 
that  because  Hayes  declined  to  support  Packard  in 
maintaining  his  title  he  thereby  acknowledged,  as  was 
claimed  by  Democrats,  the  worthlessness  of  his  own. 
The  conditions  surrounding  the  two  were  entirely  dif 
ferent.  At  Washington  Republican  administrations 
had  no  difficulty  in  maintaining  themselves  ;  but  in 
Louisiana  for  some  years  there  had  been  Republican 
governments  which,  while  probably  representing  a  ma 
jority  of  the  inhabitants,  had  not  represented  the  in 
telligence,  the  property,  and  above  all  the  physical  and 
moral  force  of  the  state,  and  in  consequence 
had  stood  only  by  grace  of  support  afforded  by  Fed 
eral  bayonets.  Now,  the  Constitution  provides  that 
the  United  States  shall  protect  every  state,  "on  appli 
cation  of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  executive  (when 
the  legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against  domestic 


1  For  a  fuller  statement  of  this  theory  see  report  of  the  com 
mission  to  the  President  in  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  97,  45th  Cong.  2d 
Sess.,  p.  12. 

2  Not  only  had  the  President  sent  the  commission  but  after 
Its  work  was  ended,  in  order  to  break  up  the  Packard  supreme 
court,   he   appointed  one   of   its   judges,   J.   E.   King,   collector  of 
New    Orleans.  —  Tribune   of    April    30th. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  303 

violence ;"  but  it  can  hardly  be  held  that  the  Constitu 
tion  contemplates  a  situation  of  affairs  such  that  pro 
tection,  actually  exercised  in  the  form  of  military  aid, 
shall  be  continuous.  Common  sense  dictates  that 
there  must  be  an  end  to  such  aid  sometime.  It  could 
reasonably  be  claimed  that  the  proper  time  in  Louisi 
ana  had  now  been  reached. 1 

There  were  yet  other  considerations  which  rendered 
a  policy  of  non-interference  necessary.  Even  had  the 
President  not  been  bound  by  the  promises  of  his 
friends,  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  to 
uphold  the  Republican  claimants.  Public  opinion,  as 
Grant  himself  had  telegraphed  2  to  Packard,  wouldjia. 
longer  support  the  main^enance^^cj^^eLgo^^rtirn^ntg 
in  Louisiana  by  military  force.  The  Househad^al- 
ready  refused  to  pass  an  army  appropriation  bill  for 
the  ensuing  year,  and  would  doubtless  refuse  to  do  so 
as  long  as  there  was  danger  that  the  troops  would  be 
used  in  the  South.  Under  the  circumstances  to  have 
attempted  to  maintain  Chamberlain  and  Packard 
would  have  been  to  court  governmental  demoralization 
and  inevitable  defeat. 3  Even  had  he  desired  to  do 
otherwise,  prudence  would  therefore  have  dictated 
to  the  President  that  he  acquiesce  with  the  best  grace 
possible  in  what  in  some  respects  may  be  regarded  as 
a  bloodless  revolution  in  the  states  of  Louisiana  and 
South  Carolina. 


1  The  Nation,  XXIV,   pp.   172,   244. 

2  Under  date  of  March  1. — H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong. 
3d  Sess.,  Ill,  p.  33. 

3  Hoar,   II,   p.    13. 


304      The  Disputed  Election  of  1876 

Whatever  were  the  causes  which  produced  it,  the 
results  of  the  new  Southern  policy  were  on  the  whole 
good.  It  is  true  that  the  promises  made  by  the  Louis 
iana  legislature,  by  Nicholls,  and  by  Hampton  were 
kept  only  in  part  by  the  white  people  of  the  two 
states ;  but  it  was  something  that  such  promises  should 
be  made,  and,  after  all,  the  reaction  which  followed 
might  have  gone  much  farther.  It  is  also  true  that 
the  Republican  party  practically  disappeared  in  the 
South,  and  as  a  result  the  freedman  in  effect  lost  his 
political  rights ;  but  he  preserved  his  civil  rights,  and 
he  lived  under  a  better  government  than  when  he  him 
self  had  assisted  in  making  and  administering  the 
laws. 

Thus  ended  the  story  of  Reconstruction.  It  had 
been  a  lurid  drama,  but  one  which  from  the  nature  of 
things  may  be  said  to  have  been  inevitable.  For  on 
the  one  side  had  stood  a  class  who  were  disinclined 
except  under  compulsion  to  concede  to  all  men  the 
basic  rights  of  human  liberty ;  while  on  the  other  had 
been  a  class  who,  though  staunch  advocates  of  liberty, 
were  too  unmoral,  too  ignorant,  to  govern  either  purely 
or  efficiently.  Many  lessons  might  be  drawn  from  the 
period,  but  the  chief  is  this : 

"He  who  is  unwilling  to  concede  liberty  to  others 
deserves  it  not  for  himself,  and  under  a  just  God  can 
not  long  retain  it." 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  POTTER  COMMITTEE  AND  THE   CIPHER  DISPATCHES 

It  would  seem  that  after  so  perilous  an  experience 
as  that  through  which  the  country  had  just  passed 
statesmen  ought  never  to  have  rested  until  the  recur 
rence  of  such  a  crisis  had  been  guarded  against  by 
the  necessary  legislation.  Numerous  proposals  for 
changes  in  the  electoral  system  were  made  in  the  years 
immediately  following,  but  not  one  of  the  many  bills 
and  amendments  brought  forward  was  incorporated 
into  the  law  of  the  land.  Not,  in  fact,  until  a  decade 
later,  after  two  subsequent  Presidential  elections  had 
occurred,  did  Congress  pass  a  bill  providing  a  per 
manent  plan  for  counting  the  electoral  vote. l 

This  bill  was  signed  by  President  Cleveland  on  the 
3d  of  February,  1887.  In  the  main  it  was  in  accord 
with  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  decisions  of  the 
Electoral  Commission.  It  provides  that  a  state  may 
finally  determine  every  contest  connected  with  the 
choice  of  electors,  but  that  such  determination  must 
be  made  in  accordance  with  a  law  passed  before  the 
electors  are  chosen  and  that  the  decision  must  have 
been  made  at  least  six  days  before  the  meeting  of  the 

1  For  a  synopsis  of  some  of  these  proposals  see  Dougherty, 
The  Electoral  Commission,  pp.  214,  354. 


306  The  Hayes-Tilden 

electors. l  Where  such  a  determination  has  been 
made,  it  must  be  accepted;  but  in  cases  where  there 
is  a  conflict  of  tribunals  that  return  is  to  be  counted 
which  the  two  houses  concur  in  receiving.  In  no 
case  is  a  return  to  be  thrown  out  except  by  the  con 
sent  of  both  houses ;  when  the  two  cannot  agree,  that 
return  is  to  be  received  which  is  certified  by  the  ex 
ecutive  of  the  state.  2 

The  long  delay  in  remedying  the  defects  in  the 
electoral  machinery  was  in  part  due  to  the  fact  that 
both  parties  were  far  more  concerned  about  the  polit 
ical  effects  of  the  great  dispute  than  they  were  inter 
ested  in  statesmanlike  efforts  to  secure  the  country 
from  similar  dangers  in  the  future.  Revanche  in 
1880  —  that  was  the  goal  towards  which  all  Demo 
cratic  endeavors  were  directed.  With  this  idea  in 
mind,  although  yielding  a  grudging  obedience  to  "the 
de  facto  President,"  they  were  careful  not  to  allow 
the  methods  by  which  that  President  had  been  seated 
to  drop  out  of  the  public's  thought  for  an  instant.  In 
almost  every  issue  of  almost  every  Democratic  news 
paper  there  appeared  at  least  one  reference  to  the 
"Steal ;"  Hayes  was  a  "Usurper,"  "the  Boss  Thief ;" 
Liberty  had  been  "stabbed  by  Radical  Ruffians;"  the 
"Death  knell  of  the  Republic"  had  sounded.  Nor  did 
the  cry  lessen  in  intensity  as  the  months  passed.  Even 


1  In  order  to  give  more  time  for  such  determination,  the  law 
provides  that  the  electors  shall  not  meet  until  the  second  Mon 
day  in  January. 

2  U.   S.   Statutes  at  Large,  vol.   24,  chap.   90,  pp.   373   et  seq. 
Even  this  law  in  many  respects  is  unsatisfactory  and  in   some 
respects  is  defective.     For  a  detailed  criticism  see  an  article  by 
Prof.  Burgess  in  The  Political  Science  Quarterly,  III,   p.   633. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  307 

after  the  quieting  effects  of  a  trip  to  Europe,  Mr.  Til- 
den  himself  proclaimed  from  the  steps  of  his  mansion 
at  15  Gramercy  Park  that  he  had  been  deprived  of  the 
Presidency  by  a  "political  crime/'  which  the  Ameri 
can  people  would  not  condone  "under  any  pretext  or 
for  any  purpose."  1  This  opinion  he  iterated  and  re 
iterated  on  all  possible  occasions.  Of  all  those  en 
gaged  in  denouncing  Republican  wickedness  and  de 
manding  the  "keen,  bright  sunlight  of  publicity"  none 
was  more  insistent  than  Mr.  Manton  Marble,  former 
editor  of  the  New  York  World,  author  of  the  famous 
"Reform"  platform  of  1876,  and  himself  one  of  the 
Democratic  visitors  to  Florida.  2 

In  the  hope  of  securing  further  evidence  for  polit 
ical  use,  Mr.  Clarkson  N.  Potter  of  New  York,  at  the 
instance  of  many  leading  Democrats,  including,  it 
seems,  Mr.  Tilden  himself,3  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  on  May  I3th,  1878,  a  resolution 
calling  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  "to  inquire 
into  the  alleged  fraudulent  canvass  and  return  of  votes 
at  the  last  Presidential  election  in  the  States  of  Louis 
iana  and  Florida." 4  The  Republicans  opposed  the 
resolution  on  the  ground  that,  by  reopening  a  question 
once  settled,  it  would  harm  the  interests  of  the  coun 
try;  and  they  quite  justly  urged  that  if  such  an  in 
vestigation  must  be  undertaken  it  ought  to  be  gen 
eral  in  its  scope  and  include  a  probing  into  the  frauds 

1  New   York   Herald,   Oct.   28th,    1877. 

2  See  his   letter   to   the   Sun   of  Aug.    3d,    1878. 

3  Charged   by   Elaine,   II,   p.    589. 

4  As   quoted   at   the   beginning  of   the   majority   report   of  the 
committee. 


308  The  Hayes-Tllden 

and  violence  in  Mississippi,  South  Carolina,  Alabama, 
Oregon,  and  elsewhere.  But,  despite  all  their  efforts 
and  also  the  opposition  of  a  few  Democrats, *  the  res 
olution  was  at  length  carried;  and  the  committee  was 
appointed.  2  It  consisted  of  Clarkson  N.  Potter,  Wm. 
R.  Morrison,  Eppa  Hunton,  Wm.  S.  Stenger,  J.  A. 
McMahon,  J.  C.  S.  Blackburn,  and  Wm.  M.  Springer, 
Democrats ;  of  Jacob  D.  Cox,  Thomas  Brackett 
Reed,  and  Frank  Hiscock,  Republicans ;  and  of  Mr. 
Benjamin  F.  Butler,  political  affiliations  at  this  time 
uncertain. 

Conditions  were  not  unfavorable  for  accomplishing 
the  purpose  for  which  the  committee  was  created.  By 
the  President's  policy  towards  the  South  many  Repub 
licans,  both  white  and  black,  had  been  rendered  his 
bitter  enemies;  others  felt  injured  because,  in  their 
estimation,  they  had  not  been  properly  "rewarded ;" 
yet  others  were  anxious  to  make  their  peace  with  the 
now  dominant  party  in  that  section;  from  among  all 
these  it  proved  easy  to  get  any  number  of  witnesses 
willing,  nay,  even  anxious,  to  testify  in  detail  to  any 
amount  of  Republican  rascality,  both  real  and  imag 
ined.  3 

In  Florida  one  of  the  chief  witnesses  was  Samuel  B. 


1  The  Nation,  XXV,  p.   333. 

2  The  debates  on  the  resolutions  are  given  in  the  Record,  45th 
Cong.   2d   Sess.,  pp.   3438  et  seq. 

3  The  Nation,  XXVII,  p.  217.     In  their  report  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  committee  said  :      "The  character  of  persons  en 
gaged  in  conspiracies  such  as  those  in   question  in  Florida  and 
Louisiana  requires  that  their  statements,   whether  in   confession 
or  denial,  should  be  received  with  suspicion.     It  was  unavoidable, 
from    the    character    of    those    concerned,    that    the    committee 
should   be   exposed   to    mistake   and    imposition." — H.    R.    R.    No. 
140,   45th  Cong.   3d   Sess.,  p.   4.     See  also  p.   3. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  309 

McLin,  ex-member  of  the  returning  board.  This  gen 
tleman  was  in  exactly  the  proper  frame  of  mind  to 
+estify  freely.  After  the  inauguration  of  Hayes  he 
had  been  made  associate  justice  of  New  Mexico  ad 
interim,  but  owing  to  the  opposition  of  Senator  Con- 
over  of  Florida  had  not  been  confirmed  by  the  Sen 
ate;  after  vainly  waiting  for  some  months  in  the  hope 
ot  receiving  another  appointment,  he  had  decided  that 
duty  demanded  that  he  should  tell  the  truth  about  the 
election  of  the  President  who  had  "basely  betrayed  and 
mercilessly  destroyed  the  Republican  party  of  the 
South."  Accordingly  he  had  published  an  affidavit 
in  which  he  said: 

"Looking  back  now  to  that  time,  I  feel  that  there 
was  a  combination  of  influences  that  must  have  oper 
ated  most  powerfully  in  blinding  my  judgment  and 

swaying    my    action I    was    shown    numerous 

telegrams  addressed  to  Governor  Stearns  and  others 
from  the  trusted  leaders  of  the  Republican  party  in 
the  North,  insisting  that  the  salvation  of  the  country 
depended  upon  the  vote  of  Florida  being  cast  for 

Hayes Following     these     telegrams     trusted 

Northern  Republicans,  party  leaders  and  personal 
friends  of  Mr.  Hayes,  arrived  in  Florida  as  rapidly 
as  the  railroads  could  bring  them.  I  was  surrounded 
by  these  men,  who  were  ardent  Republicans,  and 
especially  by  friends  of  Governor  Hayes.  One  gentle 
man  particularly,  Governor  Noyes  of  Ohio,  was  under 
stood  to  represent  him  and  speak  with  the  authority 
of  a  warm  personal  friend,  commissioned  with  power 
to  act  in  his  behalf.  These  men  referred  to  the  gen 
eral  destruction  of  the  country  should  Mr.  Tilden  be 
elected ;  the  intense  anxiety  of  the  Republican  party  of 

21 


310  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  North  and  their  full  sympathy  with  us.  I  can 
not  say  how  far  my  action  may  have  been  influenced 
by  the  intense  excitement  that  prevailed  around  me, 
or  how  far  my  partisan  zeal  may  have  led  me  into 
error  —  neither  can  I  say  how  far  my  course  was  influ 
enced  by  the  promises  made  by  Governor  Noyes,  that 
if  Mr.  Hayes  became  President  I  should  be  rewarded. 
Certainly  these  influences  must  have  had  a  strong  con 
trol  over  my  judgment  and  action." 

In  his  testimony  before  the  sub-committee  which 
examined  him  Mr.  McLin  elaborated  upon  the  state 
ments  made  in  his  affidavit. l  He  stated  that  certain 
of  the  Republican  visitors,  and  especially  Mr.  Noyes, 
W.  E.  Chandler,  and  General  Lew  Wallace,  had  as 
sured  him  that  if  Hayes  were  elected  he  (McLin) 
would  be  well  "taken  care  of."  He  also  stated  that 
since  the  contest  was  over  an  election  officer  named 
Joseph  Bowes  had  confessed  to  him  that  at  precinct  No. 
9  in  Leon  county  he  had  stuffed  the  box  with  74 
"little  jokers ;"  that  L.  G.  Dennis,  2  county  chairman 
of  Alachua  county,  had  boasted  that  he  had  secured  the 
election  of  Hayes  by  causing  219  votes  to  be  added  to 
the  returns  of  one  of  the  precincts ;  that  he  had  learned 
that  in  Jefferson  county  100  Republican  votes  had  been 
added  in  a  similar  manner :  and  that  he  had  heard  of 
other  Republican  frauds.  From  these  facts  McLin  de 
duced  the  conclusion  that  the  electoral  votes  of  Florida 
had  rightfully  belonged  to  Tilden.  Upon  cross-ex- 

1  For   his    affidavit   see   H.    R.    Mis.    Doc.    No.    31,    45th   Cong. 
3d   Sess.,   II,   p.    98.     For  his   testimony,   Ibid,  and  also   pp.    116, 
137,  150. 

2  Dennis  received  a  government  position,  but  later  lost  it.     He 
then    made   a    "statement."     His   evidence   bore   out    McLin's    on 
the  point  referred  to.     He  also  made  other  revelations. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  311 

animation,  however,  he  said  that  his  decision  had  not 
been  swayed  by  offers  of  position,  and  admitted  that 
he  had  heard  of  other  Democratic  frauds.  He  also 
made  the  interesting  statement  that  while  the  case 
was  before  the  returning  board  he  had  been  assured 
by  Mr.  Manton  Marble  that  should  Tilden  be  elected 
there  would  be  no  danger  of  McLin's  dying  poor. 1 

The  Louisiana  testimony,  many  of  the  facts  in  which 
have  already  been  used  in  this  book,  bore  on  such 
subjects  as  the  fraudulent  registration  in  New  Or 
leans,  the  "manufacture"  of  protests  and  affidavits,  the 
forgery  and  subsequent  manipulation  of  the  second 
set  of  electoral  certificates,  the  alleged  promises  made 
by  "visiting  statesmen"  to  election  officers,  the  Worm- 
ley  Conference,  and  the  work  of  the  MacVeagh  Com 
mission.  2 

One  of  the  chief  witnesses  in  Louisiana  was  James 
E.  Anderson,  ex-supervisor  of  the  parish  of  East 
Feliciana.  Anderson  had  expected  a  reward  for  his 
services  and  had  been  appointed  consul  to  Funchal; 
but  representations  regarding  his  character  had  been 
made  to  the  President  by  H.  V.  Boynton,  and  his 
commission  had  been  withheld.3  After  several  of  his 


1  McLin  admitted  in  his  testimony  that  Noyes  had  never 
promised  him  a  reward  before  the  contest  was  decided. — H.  R. 
Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  II,  p.  101.  Chandler  de 
nied  having  made  him  any  promise. — Ibid,  I,  p.  468.  Wallace 
admitted  having  told  McLin  he  had  no  doubt  Hayes  would  take 
care  of  his  friends. — Ibid,  I,  p.  514. 

2  For  a  Democratic  summary  of  the  Louisiana  testimony  see 
H.  R.  R.  No.  140,  45th  Con.  3d  Sess.,  pp.  23-67.     References  are 
given  to  some  of  the  most  important  testimony.     The  Republican 
view  is  given   on  pp.   84-93. 

3  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.  381,  384, 
394. 


312  The  Hayes-Til  Jen 

attempts  at  blackmail  had  failed  Anderson  was  ready 
to  make  a  confession.  *  One  of  his  stories  was  to  the 
effect  that  he  and  E.  L.  Weber,  supervisor  of  West 
Feliciana,  had  refused  to  make  protests  until  they  had 
received  definite  promises  of  lucrative  offices.  He 
claimed  that  a  written  promise  had  been  given  them 
by  John  Sherman,  who  was  now  secretary  of  the 
treasury.  He  was  unable,  however,  to  produce  the 
original  letter,  and  claimed  it  had  been  on  the  person 
of  Weber  when  Weber  was  killed  by  political  enemies, 
and  had  then  disappeared.  Sherman  denied  ever  hav 
ing  written  such  a  letter,  though  he  admitted  there 
were  some  things  in  it  which  he  might  have  written 
if  he  had  been  asked.  2  There  is  some  reason  to  be 
lieve  that  it  was  forged  by  an  eccentric  adventuress 
named  Agnes  D.  Jenks,  whose  many  examinations 
before  the  committee  were  productive  of  much  amuse 
ment  but  of  very  few  facts. 3  There  was  probably 
more  truth  in  some  of  Anderson's  other  charges, 4 
though  how  much  it  is  impossible  to  say,  for  he  was  a 
self-confessed  liar  and  later  offered  to  make  a  counter- 
confession.  5 

Much  testimony  was  taken  to  prove  that  the  affi 
davits  to  acts  of  violence  and  intimidation  had  been 
falsely  and  fraudulently  made.  More  than  a  dozen 
negroes  retracted  either  in  whole  or  in  part  the  affi- 


1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.   31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  I,  pp.   19,   24. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  16,  768. 

3  Ibid,  pp.    318,    357,    389,    422,    519,    554,    560. 

4  For  Anderson's  testimony  see  Ibid,  pp.   1,    38,   64,   72,   161, 
583,  926. 

5  The  Nation,  XXVII,  p.  264. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  313 

davits  signed  by  them. 1  Doubtless  some  of  these  re 
tractions  were  in  accordance  with  the  truth,  but  there 
is  reason  to  believe  that  some  of  them  were  the  result 
of  fear  or  of  the  expectation  of  pecuniary  reward. 
Two  witnesses  who  were  expected  to  retract  refused 
to  do  so,  and  said  that  they,  with  other  witnesses, 
had  been  carefully  watched  and  coached  by  a  Demo 
cratic  agent.  One  of  them  produced  $35  which  had 
been  given  him  as  a  part  of  his  reward.  The  agent 
later  admitted  giving  the  money,  but  took  refuge  in 
the  pretense  of  a  "loan"  and  a  "set-up  job."  2  What 
ever  may  be  the  truth  about  this  particular  matter, 
it  is  certain  that  all  the  Democratic  efforts  did  not 
suffice  to  bring  to  life  a  single  one  of  the  negroes  who 
had  been  killed  by  the  "bulldozers." 

Even  more  effective  than  the  testimony  which  has 
been  described  were  lists  drawn  up  by  the  committee 
of  persons  who  had  been  connected  with  the  canvass 
in  Louisiana  and  Florida  and  who  had  later  received 
Federal  offices.  Of  the  "visiting  statesmen"  Noyes 
had  been  made  minister  to  France,  Kasson  minister 
to  Austria,  Stoughton  minister  to  Russia,  Lew  Wal 
lace  governor  of  New  Mexico,  Coburn  a  commis 
sioner  of  Hot  Springs,  and  John  Sherman  secretary 
of  the  treasury.  Of  the  local  politicians  in  the  two 
states,  ex-Governor  Stearns,  Dennis,  who  had  been 
connected  with  the  Alachua  frauds,  McLin,  Wells, 
T.  C.  Anderson,  Kenner,  Packard,  and  almost  every 

1  For   some   of   this   testimony   see   H.    R.    Mis.   Doc.   No.    31, 
45th   Cong.    3d   Sess.,   Ill,   pp.   294,    306,    319,    373,    471. 

2  Ibid,  pp.  342,  345,  365,  370,  374,  385,  394;  I,  p.  1195. 


314  The  Hayes-Tilden 

person  engaged  in  making  protests,  getting  evidence, 
making  returns,  and  counting  the  votes  had  received 
offices,  some  of  which  were  very  lucrative. 1  There 
was  no  conclusive  proof  that  these  appointments  were 
intended  by  the  President  or  by  any  of  his  cabinet 
officers  as  rewards  for  questionable  services,  but  the 
circumstances  certainly  lent  themselves  to  that  view. 
The  most  charitable  construction  is,  in  the  words  of 
Mr.  Butler,  "that  post  hoc  is  not  always  propter  hoc."  2 
The  revelations  resulting  from  the  work  of  the  Pot 
ter  Committee  were  spread  broadcast  over  the  land 
by  the  Democratic  press  and  gave  promise  of  a  boun 
tiful  political  harvest.  The  Democrats  were  jubilant; 
the  Republicans  correspondingly  depressed.  The  Re 
publican  leaders  foresaw  that  unless  something  could 
be  done  to  break  the  force  of  the  disclosures  their 
party  would  meet  with  overwhelming  disaster  in  the 
approaching  congressional  elections.  Furthermore, 
the  Democrats  would  in  1880  renominate  Tilden,  and 
would,  in  truth,  "right  the  Great  Wrong."  Of 
course  everything  possible  was  made  out  of  the 
unquestionable  fact  that  a  great  deal  of  the  testimony 
was  unreliable  and  that  the  investigation  was  ex 
tremely  partisan  and  one-sided;  but  this,  it  was  felt, 
was  not  sufficient.  Something  more  must  be  done. 

1  For  these  lists  see  report  of  the  majority  in  H.  R.  R.  No. 
140,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  pp.  22,  48-49. 

2  Ibid,  p.  100.  Some  of  the  less  prominent  Republicans  were 
unquestionably  guilty  of  conferring  rewards  for  corrupt  prac 
tices.  The  mistakes  made  by  the  President  in  this  respect  seem 
to  have  resulted  in  part  at  least  from  following  bad  advice  re 
garding  persons  concerning  whom  he  knew  little  or  nothing. 
When,  as  In  the  case  of  James  E.  Anderson,  he  became  con 
vinced  of  a  man's  dishonesty,  he  refused  to  go  further. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  315 

An  opportunity  was  long  in  coming,  but  come  it  did 
and  in  unexpected  manner. 

Back  in  January,  1877,  the  Western  Union  Tele 
graph  Company  had  been  ordered  to  deliver  to  com 
mittees  of  Congress  all  dispatches  transmitted  by  Re 
publican  and  Democratic  leaders  during  the  campaign 
and  the  exciting  days  which  followed  it.  Of  these 
dispatches,  amounting  in  all  to  more  than  30,000,  many 
were  in  cipher.  Out  of  the  dispatches  in  their  pos 
session  the  Senate  committee  had  unearthed  the  Dem 
ocratic  conspiracy,  already  described,  to  purchase  the 
vote  of  a  Republican  elector  in  Oregon,  —  but  other 
wise  the  examination  had  not  been  searching  enough 
to  discover  anything  of  much  importance. 1  After  a 
time  all  the  dispatches,  as  was  supposed,  had  been  sur 
rendered  to  the  company  and  had  been  taken  back  to 
New  York  and  burned. 

Unknown  to  the  company,  however,  some  of 
the  telegrams  which  had  been  in  the  hands  of  the 
Senate  committee  had  not  been  given  up.  About  750 
had  been  abstracted,  and  in  May,  1878,  were  in  the 
possession  of  Mr.  George  E.  Bullock,  who  had  been 
messenger  of  the  committee  and  protege  of  its  chair 
man,  Senator  Morton.  In  the  month  mentioned  Bul 
lock  went  as  United  States  consul  to  Cologne  and  left 
the  dispatches  in  charge  of  Mr.  J.  L.  Evans,  who  in 
turn  gave  them  to  Mr.  Thomas  J.  Brady,  second  as 
sistant  postmaster  general.  Not  long  afterwards,  in 

1  For  the  details  of  the  Investigation  by  the  House  commit 
tee  and  the  telegrams  examined  by  it  see  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No. 
42,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess. 


316  The  Hayes-Til  den 

ways  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  describe,  a  portion  of 
them,  either  in  the  original  or  in  the  shape  of  copies, 
were  put  into  the  possession  of  the  New  York  Tri 
bune.  l 

That  newspaper,  then  as  now  hotly  Republican,  was 
on  the  lookout  for  anything  that  gave  promise  of 
helping  to  bring  about  the  discomfiture  of  the  Dem 
ocrats.  But  as  all  the  important  dispatches  were  in 
cipher,  their  possession  for  a  considerable  time  resulted 
in  nothing.  Nevertheless,  the  managers  of  the  paper 
proceeded,  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Whitelaw  Reid,  the 
editor,  "to  play  about  them  for  a  little  while.  First, 
we  threw  a  few  of  them  out  in  editorials,  trying  to 
make  a  little  fun  out  of  them,  and  attract  attention 
to  them  in  the  hope  that  somebody  would  turn  up  who 
could  decipher  them.  Nobody  came  forward,  how 
ever,  and  then  we  attacked  them  seriously."  2 

The  problem  to  which  the  managers  of  the  Tribune 
set  themselves  was  a  difficult  one  in  the  extreme, 
for  in  sending  the  telegrams  at  least  six  distinct  sys 
tems  of  crytography,  some  of  them  very  complicated, 
had  been  used.  At  last,  however,  Colonel  William  M. 
Grosvenor  and  Mr.  John  R.  G.  Hassard,  by  employing 
methods  more  suggestive  of  Poe's  Gold  Bug  than  of 
an  event  in  real  life,  were  able  to  discover  the  keys 
to  all  but  a  few  messages.  Nor  were  their  results 
mere  conjectures.  So  carefully  was  their  work  done 
and  so  thoroughly  were  the  keys  tested  that,  save  in 


4*9", 
2  Ibid,  p.   111. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8jb  317 

a  few  cases,  the  translations  were  absolutely  exact. 1 
And,  as  the  translators  had  hoped,  they  found  what 
they  were  seeking.  Some  of  the  telegrams  revealed 
on  the  part  of  certain  prominent  Democrats  conduct 
decidedly  inconsistent  with  the  manner  in  which  the 
said  Democrats  had  been  "lifting  up  sanctimonious 
eyes  to  heaven  and  thanking  God  that  they  were  not  as 
these  wicked  Republicans." 

The  results  were  given  to  the  world  by  the  Tribune 
in  a  way  skilfully  calculated  to  arouse  the  public  in 
terest  to  the  utmost.  Hints  were  dropped  that  revela 
tions  were  coming;  then  an  announcement  was  made 
that  the  publication  of  the  dispatches  was  about  to 
begin.  On  the  7th  of  October  a  detailed  account  of 
how  the  translations  had  been  made  was  published. 
On  the  following  day  the  most  important  dispatches 
relating  to  Democratic  negotiations  in  Florida  ap 
peared  ;  eight  days  later  came  the  yet  more  sensational 
ones  relating  to  the  negotiations  in  South  Carolina. 

The  chief  Florida  dispatches  thus  published  had 
passed  between  Manton  Marble  and  C.  W.  Wooley, 
Democratic  agents  who  had  gone  to  Tallahassee,2 
and  Colonel  W.  T.  Pelton,  acting  secretary  of  the 
Democratic  national  committee.  Colonel  Pelton  was 
Mr.  Tilden's  nephew  and  lived  with  him  at  the  Tilden 
residence,  No.  15  Gramercy  Park,  to  which  place  many 
of  the  telegrams  were  addressed. 

1  For  the  dispatches  and  translations  made  by  Prof.  E.  S. 
Holden,  U.  S.  Navy,  for  the  Potter  Committee,  see  H.  R.  Mis. 
Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  IV,  pp.  325-385. 

2  In  the  dispatches  Marble  was  known  as  "Moses"  and 
Wooley  as  "Fox." 


318  The  Hayes-Tilden 

The  following  was  one  of  the  most  significant  mes 
sages  : 

"Talla.  2. 
"Col.  Pelton,  No.  15  Gramercy  Park,  N.  Y.  : 

"Certificate  required  to  Moses  decision  have  London 
hour  for  Bolivia  of  just  and  Edinburgh  at  Moselle 
had  a  any  over  Glasgow  France  rec'd  Russia  of."  l 

The  translation  of  this  dispatch  read  thus : 

"Have  just  received  a  Bolivia  [proposition]  to  hand 
over  at  any  hour  required  Russia  [Tilden]  decision  of 
London  [canvassing  board]  and  certificate  of  France 
[Governor  Stearns]  for  Moselle  [two]  Glasgow  [hun 
dred]  Edinburgh  [thousand].  Moses  [Manton  Mar 
ble]." 

To  this  the  following  reply  was  returned : 
"Telegram  here.  Proposition  too  fyigh  (  ?)."  2 
On  the  3d,  the  same  day  on  which  the  reply  was 
dispatched,  Mr.  Marble  sent  to  Pelton  another  prop 
osition  for  "giving  vote  of  Republican  of  board  or  his 
concurrence  in  court  action  preventing  electoral  vote 
from  being  cast  for  half-hundred  best  United  States 
documents"  [$50,000  in  U.  S.  notes].  Mr.  Wooley 
also  asked  to  be  allowed  to  "give  hundred  thousand 
dollars  less  half  for  Tilden  additional  board  member."  3 
Pelton  replied  to  Wooley  telling  him  to  consult  Marble 
and  act  in  concert  with  him ;  to  Marble  he  sent  a  dis 
patch  which  could  not  be  deciphered  because  four 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  IV,  p.  176. 

2  There  was  some  doubt  about  the  exact  translation  of  this 
dispatch.     In  his  testimony,  however,  Pelton  said :     "I  did  send  a 
dispatch  declining  the  proposition  made."— /bid.  p.  177. 

3  Ibid,   p.    179. 


Disputed  Election  of  1  876  319 


words  had  dropped  out  in  transmission.  At  the  re 
quest  of  Marble  the  message  was  repeated,  this  time 
correctly.  x  When  translated  it  stood  : 

"Telegram  here.  Proposition  accepted  if  done  only 
once.  Better  consult  with  Wooley  and  act  in  concert. 
You  can  trust  him.  Time  very  important,  and  there 
should  be  no  divided  councils."  2 

But  the  returning  board  was  just  finishing  its  work, 
and  the  delay  proved  fatal.  3  Marble  therefore  re 
ported  that  the  plan  had  failed,  and  added,  "Tell  Til- 
den  to  saddle  Blackstone  ;"  4  while  Wooley  telegraphed, 
"Power  received  too  late."  5 

Eight  days  after  the  publication  of  the  Florida  dis 
patches  the  Tribune  gave  to  the  public  those  connected 
with  the  contest  in  South  Carolina.  In  that  state 
the  chief  Democratic  negotiator  was  Smith  Mead 
Weed,  a  prominent  Tilden  Democrat  of  New  York. 
The  dispatches  revealed  that  on  the  very  day  he  ar 
rived  in  the  state  he  transmitted  two  proposals  for 
bribing  the  returning  board.  The  last  of  these  Colonel 
Pelton  approved.  6  Negotiations  were  conducted  for 
six  days;  then  Weed  transmitted  the  following: 

"Majority  of  board  have  been  secured.  Cost  is 
80,000,  to  be  sent  as  follows:  One  parcel  of  65,000 
dollars,  one  of  10,000,  and  one  of  5,000,  all  to  be  500 
and  i  ,000  bills;  notes  to  be  delivered  as  parties  accept 

1  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.   3d  Sess.,  IV,  pp.   180, 
241. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   242,   366. 

3  Ibid,  pp.   180,   352. 

4  Ibid,  pp.  243,   352. 

5  Ibid,  p.   351. 

6  Ibid,  pp.  132-133,   145-146,   181-182. 


320  The  Hayes-Tilden 

and  given  up  upon  vote  of  land  of  Hampton  being 

given  to  Tilden's  friends Do  this  at  once  and 

have  cash  readv  to  reach   Baltimore   Sunday  night. 
Telegraph  decidedly  whether  this  will  be  done."  l 

Weed  and  Hardy  Solomon,  who  was  supposed  to 
represent  the  returning  board,  went  to  Baltimore,  and 
were  met  by  Colonel  Pelton.  What  took  place  there 
the  dispatches  do  not  disclose.  We  only  know  with 
certainty  that  Pelton  returned  to  New  York  accom 
panied  by  Weed,  that  Solomon  also  went  to  New  York, 
but  that  in  neither  place  was  the  deal  consummated. 
The  cause  of  failure  will  probably  always  remain  a 
matter  of  some  doubt;  the  Democrats  claimed  that  it 
was  because  Tilden  ordered  Pelton  home,  the  Repub 
licans  that  it  was  because  the  returning  board  suddenly 
concluded  its  labors  in  order  to  evade  the  supreme 
court,  or  because  its  members  had  merely  been  playing 
with  the  Democrats.  2 

Not  discouraged,  however,  Pelton  later  not  only 
continued  the  negotiations  already  described  in  Florida 
but  also  entered  into  a  new  plot  for  capturing  the 
electoral  vote  of  South  Carolina.  One  feature  of  this 
plot,  which  was  a  very  complicated  one,  involved 
locking  up  the  Republican  electors  in  separate  cells 
until  after  the  legal  day  for  casting  their  votes.  3 

The  publication  of  the  dispatches  created  a  tremen 
dous  sensation.  They  were  read  throughout  the  coun- 


1  H.   R.   Mis.   Doc.   No.   31,    45th   Cong.   3d   Sess.,   IV,   p.    119. 

2  For  this  matter  see 
i,   211,   215,   217,   275, 

3  Ibid,   pp.    378-379. 


2  For  this  matter  see  Ibid,  pp.  116,  117,  124,  139,  145,  156,  186, 
209,    211,   215,   217,   275,   284,  etc. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  321 

try ;  every  one  marvelled  at  the  ingenuity  of  the  trans 
lators.  Thousands  of  people  made  use  of  the  keys  and 
tested  the  accuracy  of  some  of  the  translations.  The 
Republicans  jubilantly  declared  that  Pelton  had  been 
the  agent  of  Mr.  Tilden.  The  Democrats  were  at  first 
incredulous  about  the  truth  of  the  disclosures;  some 
claimed  that  the  whole  matter  was  a  hoax.  Then,  when 
the  facts  could  no  longer  be  denied,  some  of  the  party 
organs  displayed  great  indignation  over  the  manner 
in  which  the  dispatches  had  been  obtained;  others 
tried  to  minimize  the  importance  of  the  revelations. 
Mr.  Tilden  issued  a  skilfully  drawn  letter  which 
appeared  to  the  general  public  to  be  a  sweeping  denial 
of  any  prior  knowledge  of  any  of  the  dispatches  or 
of  the  South  Carolina  negotiations,  or  of  any  knowl 
edge  of  the  negotiations  in1  Florida  until  some  time 
after  their  failure. *  Nevertheless,  Republicans  con 
tinued  to  shake  their  heads  sagely ;  while  some  of  Mr. 
Tilden's  enemies  in  his  own  party  expressed  the  opin 
ion  that  even  his  denial  would  not  save  him  the  renom- 
ination  in  1880.  2  Mr.  Manton  Marble  also  issued  a 
letter  in  which  he  violently  denied  having  sent  some  of 
the  least  important  of  the  dispatches  attributed  to  him, 
or  having  engaged  in  any  corrupt  undertakings. 3 
The  Republican  press  mentioned  Mr.  Marble  frequent 
ly,  along  with  "moral  means"  and  the  "keen,  bright 

1  New  York  Herald  of  Oct.   18th.     Mr.  Tilden  told  the  truth 
so  far  as  he  went,  but  his  letter  conveyed  an  erroneous  impres 
sion.     Compare    The   Nation,    XVII,    p.    250,    with    The    Nation, 

2  See    Tribune   for   Oct.    9th   et   seq.    for  many   extracts   from 
other  papers,  along  this  line. 

3  See    The   Nation,   XVII,    p.    250. 


322  The  Hayes-Tilden 

sunlight  of  publicity."  The  other  important  parties 
refused  to  be  interviewed. 

Needless  to  say,  the  Republicans  at  once  began  to 
demand  that  the  Potter  Committee  investigate  the 
whole  matter.  But  the  Democratic  leaders  had  no 
desire  to  stir  up  the  unexpected  hornet's  nest  any 
further.  For  some  weeks  after  Congress  met  the 
Democrats  of  the  House  avoided  the  subject  with 
great  care. l  But  as  the  clamor  increased  rather  than 
diminished,  that  body  on  January  21,  1879,  reluctantly 
directed  the  committee  to  institute  an  inquiry. 2 

The  committee's  first  efforts  were  directed  to  exam 
ining  into  the  manner  in  which  the  dispatches  had 
come  into  possession  of  the  Tribune  and  to  attempting 
to  bring  to  light  incriminating  Republican  dispatches. 
With  this  latter  aim  in  view  the  committee  examined 
in  Washington  some  of  the  telegraph  officials  and  a 
number  of  Republicans,  including  W.  E.  Chandler, 
ex-Postmaster  General  Tyner,  and  Second  Assistant 
Postmaster  General  Brady.  But  aside  from  dispatches 
which  had  passed  between  the  various  Republican 
agents  in  the  Southern  states  and  between  these  agents 
and  the  party  managers  in  the  North  on  such  matters 
as  the  chances  for  success  in  the  various  states  and  the 
transmission  of  money  in  comparatively  small  sums  for 
the  payment  of  legitimate  expenses,  nothing  of  impor 
tance  was  brought  to  light.3  The  fact  was  that  the  Re- 

1  Record,  p.  610,  speech  of  Conger  of  Michigan  on  Jan.  21. 

2  Ibid,  pp.   608-612. 

3  Some   of   these   dispatches   had   been    explained   by   W.    E. 
Chandler  and  others  two  years  before. — See  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No, 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  323 

publican  dispatches  remaining  in  existence  were  all  in 
nocuous.  If  there  had  ever  been  any  of  a  different 
character  —  and  naturally  the  Democrats  m^de  what 
they  could  out  of  the  possibility 1  —  they  had  been  de 
stroyed  and  proof  of  their  having  existed  could  not 
be  found. 

After  this  vain  attempt  to  make  counter  revela 
tions  a  subcommittee  proceeded  to  New  York  city. 
This  committee  was  composed  of  Messrs.  Hunton, 
Stenger,  and  Springer,  Democrats;  and  of  Messrs. 
Hiscock  and  Reed  (the  later  "Czar"),  Republicans. 

Among  the  persons  examined  in  New  York  were 
Mr.  Weed,  Mr.  Pelton,  Mr.  Marble,  and  Mr.  Tilden. 
Neither  Mr.  Weed  nor  Mr.  Pelton  attempted  to  deny 
the  essential  charges  made  against  them  by  the  Tri 
bune,  but  they  tried  to  justify  themselves  on  the 
ground  that  they  merely  intended  to  "ransom  stolen 
goods  from  thieves."  Mr.  Marble,  having  expatiated 
so  fully  upon  the  exalted  manner  in  which  the  Dem 
ocratic  campaign  had  been  conducted,  was  somewhat 
more  guarded  in  his  admissions.  He  acknowledged 
certain  of  the  telegrams  attributed  to  him  —  he  could 
do  no  less,  for  they  were  in  his  handwriting  —  but 


42,  44th  Cong.  2d  Sess.  The  dispatches  were  in  cipher,  but  in 
such  "a  feeble  and  worthless  one"  that  almost  anybody  could 
tell  what  they  meant ;  for  example,  "oranges"  was  substituted 
for  Florida,  "cotton"  for  South  Carolina,  "warm"  for  favorable, 
"cold"  for  hostile,  etc.  One  object  of  the  dispatches  was  to  keep 
the  workers  in  the  various  disputed  states  encouraged. 

1  It  was  claimed  by  Democrats  that  Mr.  Orton,  the  president 
of  the  Western  Union  allowed  Republicans  to  remove  incriminat 
ing  dispatches. — Bigelow,  II,  p.  171.  Another  story  was  to  the 
effect  that  Orton  said  the  committees  did  not  get  all  the  dis 
patches. — McCulloch,  Men  and  Measures  of  Half  a  Century,  p. 
420. 


324  The  Hayes-Tilden 

declared  he  had  sent  them  merely  as  "danger  signals."  1 
His  statement  on  this  point  was  received  with  peals 
of  derisive  laughter.  2 

Two  things  were  especially  noteworthy  about  the 
testimony  of  these  witnesses.  One  was  the  remarkable 
shortness  of  their  memories.  They  were  sure  that 
some  of  the  dispatches  were  incorrectly  translated,  but 
were  unable  to  translate  them  correctly,  for  they  had 
both  forgotten  and  lost  the  keys.  Secondlv,  they  all 
strove  anxiously  to  prove  the  innocence  of  Mr.  Tilden. 
While  Pelton  and  Weed  admitted  having  met  each 
other  in  Baltimore  with  the  intention  of  consummating 
a  deal  with  Hardy  Solomon,  supposed  agent  of  the 
South  Carolina  returning  board,  they  claimed  that 
Pelton  had  been  summoned  back  to  New  York  by  Mr. 
Tilden,  to  whom  a  knowledge  of  the  affair  had  been 
imparted  by  Mr.  Edward  Cooper,  treasurer  of  the 
Democratic  national  committee.  Upon  this  point  their 
testimony  was  supported  by  that  of  Mr.  Cooper.  3 

The  climax  of  the  investigation  was  the  examination 
of  Mr.  Tilden.  4  On  the  appointed  day  the  parlor  of 
the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel  in  which  the  committee's 
sessions  were  held  was  packed  to  the  utmost  with  a 
crowd  anxious  to  see  and  hear  the  distinguished  wit 
ness  who  had  so  narrowly  missed  occupying  the  Pres 
idential  chair.  At  half-past  eleven  o'clock  Mr.  Tilden 


1  For  Weed's  testimony  see  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong. 
3d  Sess.,  IV,  pp.  114-166;  for  Pelton's  pp.  166-221;  for  Marble's 
pp.  221-272. 

2  H.  R.  R.  No.  140,  45th  Cong.   3d  Sess.,  p.  73. 

3  H.  R.  Mis.  Doc.  No.  31,  45th  Cong.  3d  Sess.,  IV,  pp.  156-157. 

4  Tilden  asked  permission  to  be  heard.     However,  he  doubt 
less  would  have  been  summoned. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  325 

appeared,  in  company  with  his  brother  Henry  and 
ex-Secretary  of  State  Bigelow.  Mr.  Tilden  was 
dressed  in  black,  and  his  face  wore  the  solemn,  sphinx- 
like  expression  habitual  to  him.  Those  who  knew 
him  thought  that  he  had  aged  greatly  since  his  last 
public  appearance  and  that  he  looked  ill  and  feeble. 
"It  was,  indeed,"  wrote  the  Herald's  reporter,  "quite 
a  painful  spectacle  to  see  the  slow,  halting,  lame  walk 
with  which  he  passed  the  table  and  reached  his  seat. 
His  figure  was  stiffly  drawn  up  and  seemed  incapable 
of  bending,  as  though  he  were  suffering  from  a  par 
alytic  contraction  of  the  limbs.  Not  a  muscle  of  his 
face  relaxed  with  animation  or  expression  as  he  stiffly 
extended  his  hand  to  Mr.  Reed  of  Maine,  who  received 
the  salutation  with  something  like  a  profound  bow. 
Then  Mr.  Tilden  gave  his  hand  to  Mr.  Hiscock,  the 
other  cross-examiner,  and  after  saluting  the  Demo 
cratic  members  took  off  his  elegant,  silk-lined  overcoat, 
stiffly  turned  round  and  seated  himself  at  the  table, 
while  settling  at  the  same  time  a  large  handkerchief 
in  his  breast  pocket." 

The  examination  lasted  for  two  and  one-half 
hours,  but  was  more  remarkable  as  a  contest  of 
wits  than  for  sensational  results.  Mr.  Tilden  was  too 
old  and  experienced  a  lawyer  to  betray  himself  into 
any  admissions  (granting  he  had  any  to  make), 
even  at  the  hands  of  such  able  and  relentless 
inquisitors  as  Mr.  Hiscock  and  Mr.  Reed.  He  fol 
lowed  the  line  already  laid  down  by  the  previous  wit 
nesses,  asserted  that  he  had  in  no  case  been  privy  to 
22 


326  The  Hayes-Tilden 

any  negotiations  such  as  those  described,  and  declared 
that  where  such  negotiations  had  come  to  his  notice  he 
had  at  once  put  a  stop  to  them.  With  these  denials 
he  intermingled  emphatic  expressions  of  a  belief  that 
he  had  been  cheated  out  of  the  Presidency.  The  only 
point  upon  which  the  cross-examiners  can  be  said  to 
have  scored  was  upon  his  misleading  letter  of  the 
previous  October. 1 

Opinions  varied  greatly  as  to  the  outcome  of  the 
investigations.  The  Democrats  held,  of  course,  that 
Tilden  had  been  completely  exonerated.  They  pointed 
to  the  fact  that  while,  as  they  asserted,  the  returning 
boards  could  have  been  bought  for  sums  that  would 
have  been  mere  bagatelles  to  Mr.  Tilden,  not  a  single 
such  deal  had  been  consummated ;  the  boards  had  given 
their  decisions  to  Hayes,  and  had  been  rewarded  by 
offices. 2  The  Republicans  refused  to  admit  that  the 
boards  had  been  as  purchasable  as  the  Democrats  had 
believed,  3  and  claimed  that  if  the  boards  had  been  in 
the  market,  the  failure  of  the  attempts  to  purchase 
them  had  been  due  to  other  causes  than  reluctance  of 
Mr.  Tilden's  agents  to  engage  in  such  transactions.  4 
In  their  efforts  to  fix  a  guilty  knowledge  upon  Tilden 
they  pointed  out  that  he  had  always  taken  a  close 

1  For   Tilden's    testimony   see    H.    R.    Mis.    Doc.    No.    31,    45th 
Cong.   3d   Sess.,   IV,  pp.   272-294. 

2  See  Bigelow,  II,  pp.   170,  174. 

3  They  said  the  boards  had  merely  been  drawing  the  Demo 
crats    on.     Against   the    Democratic    claim    that   the   boards   had 
been  purchased   by  the   Republicans   they  argued   that   since  the 
members  were  Republicans,   they  naturally  gave  their  decisions 
for  that  party  without  reward. 

4  Tribune  and  Times  for  Feb.  9,  1879,  and  days  immediately 
succeeding. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  327 

interest  in  the  details  of  his  campaigns,  that  one  of 
the  ciphers  had  been  used  in  his  business,  that  he  had 
misled  the  public  in  regard  to  the  South  Carolina  nego 
tiation,  that  after  he  knew  of  that  attempted  transac 
tion  he  had  not  withdrawn  his  confidence  from  Pelton 
but  had  left  him  in  such  a  position  that  he  was  able 
to  make  similar  attempts  in  South  Carolina  once  more 
and  also  in  Florida  and  perhaps  elsewhere. 1  In  the 
absence  of  irrefragable  proof  on  either  side,  the  ver 
dict  of  history  will  have  to  be  that  of  "Not  proven." 
At  present  the  weight  of  opinion  seems  to  be  that  at 
the  worst  he  was  not  directly  cognizant  of  the  at 
tempted  bribery.  He  may  have  been  entirely  guiltless, 
but  it  is  difficult  to  escape  from  the  feeling  that  he  was 
to  a  certain  extent  responsible. 

But,  while  the  measure  of  Mr.  Tilden's  participation 
remained  a  matter  of  doubt,  the  political  effect  of  the 
cipher  disclosures  was  enormous.  The  fact  that  the 
Democratic  candidate  had  not  been  able  to  clear  him 
self  from  suspicion  militated  against  his  chances  as  a 
candidate  in  1880,  and  was  doubtless  one  reason  why 
the  Democratic  convention  of  that  year  accepted  his 
"renunciation"  without  protest.  2  Even  to  those  who 
believed  him  innocent  it  had  been  proved  beyond  the 
possibility  of  doubt  that  prominent  Democrats,  who 
were  his  close  friends  and  one  of  whom  was  his  nephew 


1  Mr.   Tilden   also  continued  on  the  best  of  terms  with   Mr. 
Marble  and  Mr.  Weed.     As  late  as  Mr.  Cleveland's  first  adminis 
tration    he    attempted,    but    without    success,    to    secure    the    ap 
pointment  of  Weed  as  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

2  The  Nation  thought  his  renunciation  freed  the  party  of  a 
heavy  load.— XXX,  p.  463, 


328        The  Disputed  Election  of  l8jd 

had  been  guilty  of  attempting  to  purchase  the  Presi 
dency  for  him;  and  it  was  pertinently  asked  whether, 
taking  his  own  statement,  a  man  so  easily  hoodwinked 
by  those  around  him  would  prove  any  more  successful 
as  a  "Reformer"  than  Grant  had  been.  And  while  the 
revelations  did  not  remove  from  the  skirts  of  the  Re 
publican  party  the  mud  that  was  attached  to  them  they 
did  open  the  eyes  of  independents  to  the  fact  that  the 
skirts  of  Dame  Democracy  were  not  a  whit  cleaner. 
Unquestionably  the  publication  of  the  dispatches  had 
some  influence  upon  the  congressional  election  which 
came  in  the  month  following  their  appearance.  When 
the  Tribune's  statement  of  the  case  was  substantiated 
by  the  admissions  made  in  the  following  February 
before  the  Potter  Committee,  the  "Great  Steal,"  which 
had  promised  so  much  for  the  Democracy,  at  once 
ceased  to  be  a  living  political  issue.  When  the  cam 
paign  of  1880  came,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Demo 
cratic  platform  declared  that  issue  to  precede  and 
dwarf  every  other,  the  orators  of  the  party  were 
utterly  unable  to  interest  the  people  in  the  subject. 1 
The  cry  of  "fraud"  had  lost  its  effectiveness;  and 
Garfield,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Electoral  Commis 
sion,  was  triumphantly  elected  over  Hancock. 


1  Stanwood,   History   of   Presidential   Elections,   p.    372. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

LEGAL    ASPECTS    AND    THE    EQUITIES 

Well-nigh  thirty  years  have  passed  since  the  begin 
ning  of  the  electoral  controversy  which  it  has  been 
the  purpose  of  this  volume  to  describe.  All  the  chief 
candidates,  most  of  the  party  managers,  all  but  two  of 
the  members  of  the  Commission,  are  dead.  The  vast 
majority  of  living  Americans  have  no  personal  remem 
brance  of  the  great  dispute.  The  rights  and  wrongs 
of  the  controversy  no  longer  play  a  part  in  politics. 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  time  has  come  when 
the  investigator  may  hope  to  frame  a  judgment  on  the 
whole  matter  that  will  be  free  from  prejudice. 

As  regards  the  election  proper,  it  is  manifest  to  any 
candid  mind  that  many  regrettable  things  were  done 
by  both  parties.  In  the  states  of  South  Carolina  and 
Louisiana,  for  example,  the  white  people  had  by  a 
long  period  of  terrible  misgovernment  been  brought 
to  such  a  pitch  of  desperation  that  they  felt  inclined 
to  use  any  means  which  would  put  their  governments 
once  more  into  the  hands  of  the  intelligent  and  the 
reputable.  Having  been  forced  to  accept  negro  suf 
frage  sorely  against  their  will,  they  naturally  had  little 
compunction  in  attempting  to  eliminate  as  much  of  the 


/\ 


330  The  Hayes-Tilden 

black  vote  as  possible.  In  general  this  work  was  ac 
complished  by  methods  which,  considering  the  exas 
peration  of  the  whites,  were  comparatively  mild,  but 
which  in  exceptional  instances  resulted  in  outrages 
horrible  almost  beyond  belief.  In  Florida,  also,  while 
the  amount  of  corruption  in  the  government  had  not 
been  great,  the  whites  were  almost  equally  eager  to 
carry  the  election.  In  Louisiana,  and  perhaps  in 
Florida,  by  methods  which  have  been  described  in 
detail  in  previous  chapters,  the  Democrats  succeeded 
in  their  attempts  to  get  a  majority  of  votes  into  the 
ballot-boxes.  In  South  Carolina  they  failed  so  far  as 
the  national  ticket  was  concerned  but  succeeded  on  the 
state  ticket.  Had  there  been  a  free  election  in  these 
states,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  all  would 
have  returned  substantial  majorities  for  Hayes.  Here, 
then,  not  to  speak  too  euphemistically,  was  what  may 
be  denominated  "the  first  steal." 

But  in  these  states  there  were  laws  intended  to 
meet  such  emergencies  as  those  just  described.  If 
these  laws  had  been  properly  applied,  but  little  could 
justly  have, been  said  against  such  a  procedure;  for 
assuredly  there  is  nothing  sacred  about  returns  of 
votes  when  the  election  in  which  such  votes  were  cast 
has  been  affected  by  violence  and  fraud.  But,  in 
Louisiana  at  least,  the  law  was  so  imperfect  that  if  it 
had  been  followed  to  the  letter  by  the  returning  board 
the  majority  rolled  up  by  the  Democrats  would  prob 
ably  not  have  been  overcome.  The  returning  officers, 
however,  were  no  sticklers  for  the  letter  of  the  law. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  331 

By  and  with  the  counsel  of  Republican  "visiting  states 
men"  they  proceeded  in  the  most  irregular  manner 
not  only  to  throw  out  enough  votes  to  secure  the 
election  of  the  state  and  national  tickets,  which 
would  have  been  elected  with  a  fair  and  free  vote,  but 
also  to  manufacture  majorities  for  congressional,  leg 
islative,  and  other  candidates,  who  would  have  been 
defeated  under  any  circumstances.  Reputable  men  in 
the  Republican  party  no  doubt  condoned  such  action 
because  their  opponents  were  guilty  of  wrong  prac 
tices  and  because  they  deemed  it  necessary  to  fight  the 
devil  with  fire. 1  Herein  they  are  to  be  condemned ; 
for  wrong  should  not  be  met  by  wrong  but  by 
recourse  to  law,  and  free  institutions  are  in  grave 
danger  when  citizens,  however  good  their  inten 
tions,  endeavor  to  correct  one  wrong »  by  another. 
From  the  mere  selfish  point  of  view  it  may  safely  be 
said  that  had  the  Republican  party  acquiesced  in  the 
result,  upon  discovering  that  the  law  strictly  applied 
would  not  correct  the  wrongs  committed  by  their  op 
ponents  in  the  disputed  states,  they  would  not  have 
suffered  in  the  end.  But  the  temptation  was  too  great 
to  be  resisted.  The  situation  was  such  that  the  lead 
ers  saw  an  opportunity  to  obtain,  by  violating  the  law, 
a  result  that  would  be  in  a  certain  sense  legal ;  hence 
ensued  in  Louisiana  and  perhaps  in  Florida  what  may 
be  designated  as  "the  second  steal,"  as  a  result  of  which 


1  Conversely  the  Democrats  condoned  bulldozing  and  kindred 
practices  because  of  Republican  misgovernment  and  because  of 
previous  frauds  by  returning  officers. 


332  The  Hayes-Tilden 

the  electoral  votes  of  the  two  states  remained  in  the 
hands  of  the  Republicans. 

The  situation  after  the  electoral  colleges  had  met 
then  amounted  to  this :  In  Louisiana  and  perhaps  in 
Florida  there  had  been  a  ''double  steal,"  as  a  result  of 
which  the  regularly  declared  electors  of  those  states 
had  cast  their  votes  for  Hayes.  To  render  matters  yet 
more  complicated  there  had  been  attempted  "steals" 
in  two  other  states.  In  South  Carolina  the  attempt 
had  failed  so  far  as  the  national  ticket  was  concerned, 
but  the  attempt  had  been  productive  of  much  disorder 
and  many  irregularities,  so  that  a  claim  could  be  made 
that  the  vote  of  the  state  should  not  be  received  at  all. 
In  Oregon  also  a  most  bare-faced  attempt  had  been 
made  to  override  the  law  with  such  a  result  as  greatly 
to  complicate  the  situation. 

The  controversy  now  entered  the  halls  of  Congress. 
Had  the  outcome  not  hinged  upon  every  one  of  the 
points  in  dispute,  Congress  would  doubtless  have 
evaded  the  difficulties  of  the  situation  as  they  had 
evaded  like  difficulties  in  the  past,  either  by  throwing 
out  the  votes  of  the  states  or  perhaps  by  counting  them 
in  the  alternative.  But  if  all  the  votes  were  not  counted 
and  counted  for  the  Republicans,  then  the  choice  of  a 
President  would  be  thrown  into  the  Democratic  Hous_e. 
Had  the  Republicans  been  the  original  offenders  in  the 
states  in  dispute  then  unquestionably  it  would  have 
been  equitable  to  throw  out  some  or  all  of  the  votes 
and  secure  this  result.  But  with  some  justice  the 
Republicans  could  say:  With  a  fair  election  these 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  333 

states  would  have  cast  their  votes  for  Hayes,  and  it  is 
not  right  that  Tilden  should  reap  the  reward,  even 
indirectly,  of  Democratic  wrong-doing.  To  have 
thrown  out  the  votes  of  states  under  such  circum 
stances  would  have  established  a  precedent  which 
might  have  led  to  dangerous  temptation  in  the  future. 
The  whole  controversy  therefore  resolved  itself  intQ 
the  question  of  who  should  count  the  electoral  votes. 
Extreme  Republicans  said  that  the  president  of  the 
Senate  should  do  the  counting;  extreme  Democrats 
said  that  the  House  must  participate,  and  that  no  vote 
should  be  counted  against  its  consent;  moderates  on 
both  sides  said  that  the  votes  must  be  counted  by  both 
houses.  Clearly  the  moderates  were  right.  It  was 
not  reasonable  that  a  partisan  president  of  the  Senate 
should  decide  the  dispute ;  nor  was  it  reasonable  that 
a  partisan  House  should  be  allowed  to  reject  votes 
when  by  so  doing  it  would  be  able  to  elect  the  candi 
date  of  its  choice.  Granted,  however,  that  to  both 
houses  belonged  the  coveted  power,  the  way  was  still 
beset  with  difficulties.  How  should  they  count?  What 
should  be  done  in  case  of  a  deadlock  between  the  two  ? 
Evidently  some  arrangement  must  be  made  which  > 
would  obviate  the  difficulties.  The  result  was  the 
Electoral  Commission. 

Without  a  shadow  of  doubt  the  act  creating  that 
Commission  was  one  of  the  wisest  pieces  of  statecraft 
ever  evolved  by  an  American  Congress.  To  be  sure, 
the  result  of  the  Commission's  work  was  a  disappoint 
ment  to  one  party ;  but  any  settlement  of  the  dispute 


334  The  Hayes-Tilden 

would  have  been  productive  of  equal  disappointment 
and  might  have  been  attended  with  far  more  lamenta 
ble  consequences.  The  situation  was,  in  fact,  emi 
nently  one  for  compromise.  Unlike  the  slavery  issue, 
it  was  comparatively  unimportant,  save  to  a  hundred 
thousand  office-holders  and  to  five  hundred  thousand 
office-seekers,  which  party  was  victorious ;  compromise 
evaded  no  all-important  questions  which  the  future 
would  have  to  solve.  To  have  resorted  to  anything 
else  than  compromise  would  have  been  wicked  and 
criminal  to  the  last  degree.  To  the  men  therefore  who 
worked  for  compromise,  to  President  Grant,  to  Mr. 
McCrary,  to  Senators  Edmunds,  Thurman,  and  Bay 
ard,  to  Mr.  Hewitt  and  Mr.  Hoar,  is  due  the  highest 
praise.  In  this  praise  neither  Mr.  Hayes  nor  Mr. 
Tilden  has  any  right  to  share ;  for  Mr.  Hayes  favored 
the  declaration  of  the  result  by  the  president  of  the 
Senate,  while  Mr.  Tilden  was  wedded  to  the  theory 
that  the  House  could  throw  out  votes,  and  was  always 
resentful  towards  Senators  Thurman  and  Bayard  and 
the  other  Democratic  leaders  who  were  instrumental  in 
helping  create  the  Commission.  So  far  as  the  two 
parties  as  a  whole  are  concerned,  the  plan  adopted  was 
favored  by  more  Democrats  than  Republicans.  This 
in  part  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Democrats  real 
ized  that  tactically  they  were  at  a  disadvantage ;  while 
the  Republicans,  confident  of  the  strength  of  their 
position,  were  unwilling,  in  the  words  of  Morton,  to 
give  to  their  "political  opponents  advantages  and 
chances  which  thev  now  have  not." 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  335 

The  question  whether  the  Electoral  Commission 
Act  was  warranted  by  the  Constitution  is  interesting 
but  not  important.  Most  of  the  best  constitutional 
lawyers  in  both  houses  of  Congress  defended  the 
bill;  it  was  passed  by  Congress  by  large  majorities; 
it  was  signed  by  the  President;  and  a  majority  of  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  consented  to  sit  on  the 
Commission  created  by  it.  To  all  practical  intents 
and  purposes,  therefore,  it  was  constitutional.  And, 
without  going  further  into  the  question,  it  may  be 
remarked  in  passing  that  the  Constitution  has  suffered 
many  severer  wrenches  than  it  did  when  the  forty- 
fourth  Congress  decided  that  under  the  "general 
clause"  the  expression  "and  the  votes  shall  then  be 
counted"  conferred  power  to  create  an  Electoral  Com 
mission. 

The  chief  criticisms  that  have  been  made  of  the 
Commission  and  its  work  are :  i .  That  the  Com 
mission  behaved  in  a  thoroughly  partisan  manner.  2. 
That  some  of  the  members  allowed  their  partisanship 
to  betray  them  into  taking  positions  inconsistent  with 
their  formerly  declared  opinions.  3.  That  the  Com 
mission  did  wrong  in  refusing  to  go  behind  the  counts 
of  the  returning  boards  for  the  purpose  of  taking 
evidence  and  overthrowing  fraud.  4.  That  the  deci 
sions  of  the  Commission  in  the  various  cases  were 
inconsistent  with  each  other. 1 

As  regards  the  first  and  second  charges  there  can 


1  E.  g.,  John  Goode  in  American  Law  Review,  XXXVIII,  pp. 
174-76,  and  Gibson,  pp.  39-48.  The  ignorance  of  constitutional 
law  displayed  by  Gibson  is  something  lamentable. 


336  The  Hayes-Tilden 

be  no  difference  of  opinion.  The  Commission  did 
divide  upon  party  lines ;  upon  every  important  question 
the  vote  was  invariably  eight  to  seven.  Some  of  the 
members  did  assume  positions  at  variance  with  their 
previous  records.  Senators  Thurman  and  Bayard  and 
Mr.  Abbott  had  in  the  past  advocated  the  theory  that 
Congress  has  no  power  to  go  behind  the  decisions  of 
state  authorities,  but  now  took  the  stand  that  Congress 
has  that  power.  On  the  Republican  side,  Senator  Mor 
ton  and  Mr.  Garfield  had  attacked  the  Commission  bill 
on  the  ground  that  it  might  be  interpreted  as  conferring 
power  to  go  behind  the  returns ; l  while  Mr.  Edmunds 
and  Mr.  Hoar  by  previous  utterances  regarding  the 
Louisiana  returning  board  had  placed  themselves  in  a 
position  somewhat  at  variance  with  the  deference  now 
paid  by  them  to  that  body's  decisions.  2  Lastly,  the 
stand  of  some  of  the  Republicans  in  advocating  the 
rejection  of  doubtful  votes  at  previous  counts  is  rather 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  their  insistence  in  this  case 
that  all  doubtful  votes  should  be  counted.  3 

K-hJ*  y\ 

The  charge  that  the  Commission  did  wrong  in  re 
fusing  to  take  evidence  to  show  that  returning  officers 
had  fraudulently  declared  the  result,  is  by  no  means 
so  well  sustained.  The  taking  of  such  evidence  would 
have  been  open  to  at  least  two  serious  objections.  In 
the  first  place,  the  taking  of  evidence  on  these  points 


1  But  they  did  not  «ay  that  the  Commission  would  have  such 
power. 

2  Technically  they  were  perhaps  not  Inconsistent.    In  his  crit 
icism  of  Edmunds,  Gibson  fails  to  state  that  Edmunds  was  re 
ferring  to  a  returning  board  qreated  by  a  former  law. 

3  The   chief    Republican   inconsistency    in    the   course   of   th« 
struggle  was  in  Congress,  not  in  the  Commission. 


Disputed  Election  of  l8j6  337 

» 

would  have  entailed  an  amount  of  labor  so  great  that 
months  of  time  would  necessarily  have  been  consumed ; 
for,  as  the  Republicans  correctly  urged,  such  an  inves 
tigation  must  have  extended  not  only  to  the  acts  of 
the  returning  officers  but  also  to  the  election  itself 
and  to  the  intimidation  and  outrages  which  had  pre 
ceded  it.  In  the  second  place,  the  Republicans  un 
questionably  stood  upon  a  sound  constitutional  princi 
ple  when  they  contended  that  Congress  does  not  pos 
sess  the  power  to  go  behind  the  action  of  state  can 
vassing  officers.  That  they  took  this  stand  was,  how 
ever,  due  rather  to  accident  than  to  any  anxiety  on 
their  part  to  safeguard  the  rights  of  the  states. x 

The  charges  that  the  Commission  was  inconsistent 
in  its  rulings  are  in  part  an  outgrowth  of  a  misappre 
hension  of  the  principle  upon  which  the  rulings  were 
based.  For  this  misapprehension  the  reports  of  the 
Commission  to  Congress  are  in  part  responsible ;  they 
are  so  roughly  drawn  as  to  make  rulings  appear  incon 
sistent  which  really  are  not  at  all  so.  Had  the  reports 
been  drawn  in  such  a  way  as  to  reveal  all  the  grounds 
of  the  decisions,  some  of  the  criticisms  of  the  Commis 
sion  could  not  have  been  made  with  any  show  of 
reason.  As  it  was,  those  who  read  the  decisions  were 
likely  to  get  the  idea  that  the  Commission  claimed  to 
take  the  stand  that  evidence  aliunde  the  papers  opened 
by  the  president  of  the  Senate  could  not  be  received, 


1  It  is  open  to  question,  however,  whether  the  Commission 
might  not  properly  have  received  some  of  the  evidence  tendered 
to  prove  that  the  returning  boards  had  not  correctly  represented 
the  states. 


33 8  The  Hayes-Tilden 

whereas  the  Commission  really  followed  the  line  of 
cleavage  between  state  and  Federal  powers. 

Starting  with  the  erroneous  premise  just  mentioned, 
Democratic  writers  have  asserted  that  the  Commission 
was  guilty  of  a  glaring  inconsistency  in  its  rulings  in 
the  Florida  case.  They  point  triumphantly  to  the  fact 
that  the  Commission  refused  "to  go  into  evidence 
aliunde  the  papers  opened  by  the  president  of  the 
Senate  in  the  presence  of  the  two  houses"  to  prove 
that  other  than  the  Republican  claimants  were  ap 
pointed  electors,  and  then  did  go  into  evidence  aliunde 
to  prove  that  one  of  the  electors  was  not  ineligible. 1 
These  critics  fail  to  see  that  the  Commission  did  not 
lay  down  the  principle  that  it  was  not  competent  to 
take  "evidence  aliunde  the  papers  opened  by  the  pres 
ident  of  the  Senate"  upon  any  and  all  points ;  that,  on 
the  contrary,  it  merely  held  that  it  was  not  competent 
to  take  such  evidence  upon  one  single  point,  namely, 
"to  prove  that  other  persons  than  those  regularly  certi 
fied  to  by  the  governor  of  the  state  of  Florida,  in  and 
according  to  the  determination  and  declaration  of  their 
appointment  by  the  board  of  state  canvassers  of  said 
state  prior  to  the  time  required  for  the  performance 
of  their  duties,  had  been  appointed  electors/'  2  This 
decision  was  a  sound  one,  for  it  was  based  on  the 
theory  that  the  Commission  had  no  right  to  trench 
upon  the  sphere  of  state  powers.  But  the  examination 

1  According  to  Senator  Hoar,  four  of  the  Democratic  members 
of  the  Commission  believed  that  the  Republicans  stood  on  solid 
constitutional   ground. — McClure's,   XXIII,    p.    84. 

2  The  italics  are  mine. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  339 

into  the  eligibility  of  the  elector  was  an  entirely  differ 
ent  matter;  this  examination  could  be  entered  into 
because  the  question  of  his  ineligibility  was  one  which 
lay  within  the  sphere  of  Federal  powers.  Hence  the 
two  rulings  were  not  at  all  inconsistent. 

Again  it  has  been  said  that  because  the  Commission 
received  evidence  regarding  the  eligibility  of  the 
Florida  elector,  refused  it  in  the  case  of  electors  in 
Louisiana,  and  received  it  in  the  case  of  Watts  in 
Oregon,  here  was  another  inconsistency.  But  the 
seeming  inconsistency  is  easily  explained.  Humphreys 
in  Florida  was  alleged  to  be  ineligible  under  a  Federal 
statute.  Four  of  the  Louisiana  electors  were  alleged 
to  be  ineligible  under  a  state  statute;  while  the  objec 
tions  against  the  eligibility  of  the  other  two  related 
to  the  time  of  the  election  in  November,  not  to  the 
time  of  their  re-appointment  on  the  6th  day  of  De 
cember.  Watts  was  alleged  to  be  ineligible  under  the 
Federal  statute.  Clearly,  therefore,  the  Commission 
was  competent  to  investigate  the  case  of  Humphreys 
and  the  case  of  Watts  but  was  not  competent  to  inves 
tigate  the  cases  of  the  four  Louisiana  electors  who 
were  alleged  to  be  ineligible  under  a  state  statute ; 
while  as  for  Brewster  and  Levissee,  since  the  objec 
tions  did  not  relate  to  the  time  of  the  appointment 
under  which  they  acted,  the  Commission  did  not  need 
to  make  an  investigation. 

Yet  again  it  has  been  claimed  that  the  Commission 
refused  to  go  behind  the  governor's  certificate  in 
Louisiana  and  Florida  but  went  behind  it  in  Oregon. 


34°  The  Hayes-Tilden 

This  claim  completely  misrepresents  the  truth  of  the 
matter.  In  no  case  did  the  Commission  hold  that  the 
governor's  certificate  was  conclusive ;  on  the  contrary, 
the  Republican  counsel  and  the  Republican  Commis 
sioners  held  throughout  that  while  the  governor's 
certificate  was  prima  facie  evidence,  his  action,  having 
been  performed  under  a  Federal  statute,  was  subject 
to  review. 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  said  that  in  their  action 
in  some  phases  of  the  Oregon  case  the  Republican 
eight  probably  sailed  closer  to  the  wind  than  on  any 
other  occasion.  If,  however,  we  accept  their  interpre 
tation  of  the  nature  of  the"  Oregon  canvass  and  their 
interpretation  of  the  nature  of  an  appointment  —  in 
terpretations  as  capable  of  defense  as  any  —  we  can 
reconcile  their  rulings  even  in  this  case. 

But  even  though  the  Commission's  decisions  were 
based  upon  sound  law,  were  they,  it  will  be  asked,  in 
accordance  with  the  equities  of  the  case  ?  The  answer 
to  this  question  must  always  remain  more  or  less  a 
matter  of  opinion,  yet  it  is  probable  that  as  time 
goes  on  the  consensus  of  opinion  will  more  and  more 
incline  one  way.  It  is  entirely  clear  that  in  only  two 
of  the  four  disputed  states  —  namely,  Florida  and 
Louisiana  —  did  the  Democrats  have  the  shadow  of  an 
equitable  claim  to  a  single  electoral  vote.  Had  there 
been  a  fair  and  free  election  in  those  states,  there  can 
be  little  if  any  doubt  that  the  result  in  both  would 
have  been  favorable  to  Hayes.  If  there  had  been  a 
fair  and  free  election  throughout  the  South,  there  can 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  341 

£\ 

be  little  question  that  Mississippi,  with  its  great 
preponderance  of  blacks,  and  perhaps  Alabama  and 
North  Carolina,  would  have  ranged  themselves  in 
the  Republican  column,  and  that  the  much  vaunted 
Democratic  majority  of  the  popular  vote  —  which, 
after  all,  stood  for  absolutely  nothing  —  would  have 
been  overcome. 

Something  can  be  said  in  behalf  of  the  ingenious 
theory  that  it  was  not  unjust  that  the  Republicans 
should  retain  control  of  the  national  government, 
whereas  the  Democrats  should  get  control  of  the  con 
tested  Southern  states.  The  arguments  in  behalf  of 
intimidation  rested  on  the  evils  of  negro  rule.  It 
could  therefore  be  urged  that  while  there  was  some 
justification  for  preventing  a  negro  from  voting  for 
a  Republican  candidate  for  state  office,  there  was  no 
such  justification  for  suppressing  his  vote  for  Repub 
lican  electors. 

All  things  considered,  it  appears  that  both  legally1 
and  ethically  the  decision  was  the  proper  one.  That 
a  majority  of  the  American  people  thought  so 
is  shown  pretty  conclusively  by  the  result  of  the  next 
Presidential  election.  Had  they  believed  otherwise, 
they  would  doubtless  have  resented  the  "Great  Fraud" 
in  a  manner  not  to  be  mistaken.  But  they  realized 
that  the  cries  of  the  Democrats  were  but  another  illus- 


1  Against  the  argument  that  the  negroes  ought  not  to  have 
voted  nothing  further  need  be  said  than  that  their  right  to  do  so 
was  guaranteed  by  "the  law  of  the  land."  Furthermore,  it  should 
not  be  forgotten  that  the  negro  population  of  the  South  grave 
that  section  an  added  representation  of  about  thirty-three  in 
the  Electoral  colleges. 
23 


342  The  Hayes-Til  den 

tration  of  the  pot  calling  the  kettle  black.  They  knew 
that  while  Hayes  was  undoubtedly  the  beneficiary  of 
fraud,  Tilden  would  just  as  truly  have  been  the  bene 
ficiary  of  violence  and  murder.  They  decided  that  the 
situation  was  one  of  those  rare  ones  in  which  two 
wrongs  go  to  make  a  right;  and,  therefore,  in  1880 
they  elected  to  the  Presidency  a  member  of  the  Elec 
toral  Commission. 

But,  while  the  outcome  of  the  great  controversy  was 
in  the  main  a  just  one,  the  contest  was  unquestionably 
attended  by  many  deplorable  incidents.  No  true  pa 
triot  can  contemplate  without  regret  the  terrible  out 
rages  upon  the  blacks,  the  frauds  committed  by  elec 
tion  officers,  the  violence  of  party  feeling,  the  ques 
tionable  conduct  of  leaders  on  both  sides,  the  attempts 
to  purchase  returning  boards  and  electors,  the  bargain 
between  the  friends  of  Hayes  and  certain  Southern 
leaders,  the  prostitution  of  the  civil  service  in  reward 
ing  some  of  the  most  disreputable  of  the  Southern  Re 
publicans,  the  partisanship,. displayed  by  the  members 
of  the  Commission,  and  many  other  phases  of  the 
struggle.  In  fact,  it  seemed  as  if  the  whole  cesspool 
of  political  filth  had  been  suddenly  and  vigorously 
stirred  and  that  it  had  given  off  its  most  noxious  va 
pors.  Unfortunately,  however,  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether,  after  all,  the  election  of  1876  was  much  more 
productive  of  corrupt  actions  than  some  other  elections 
both  -before  and  since.  More  of  such  actions  came  to 
light,  but  probably  because  the  searchlight  was  turned 
on  as  in  no  other  contest. 


Disputed  Election  of  1876  343 

-'-Yet  there  were  other  aspects  which  revealed  in  the 
American  people  characteristics  that  are  beyond  praise. 
A  bitter  contest  which  might  have  resulted  in  a  conflict 
that  would  have  leveled  the  foundations  of  the  Republic 
had  been  settled  without  a  resort  to  arms.  A  great 
party  had  gone  down  to  what  most  of  its  members 
believed  was  a  foul  defeat.  But  the  result  had  been 
acquiesced  in  for  the  good  of  the  country ;  and  though 
the  enmities  engendered  by  the  controversy  were  to 
linger  long  in  American  public  life,  they  were  finally 
to  disappear  without  leaving  any  appreciable  scar 
upon  the  body-politic. 


APPENDIX 

THE  ELECTORAL  COMMISSION  ACT 

An  act  to  provide  for  and  regulate  the  counting  of  votes  for 
President  and  Vice-President,  and  the  decision  of  questions 
arising  thereon,  for  the  term  commencing  March  4,  A.  D.  1877. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa 
tives  shall  meet  In  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at 
the  hour  of  one  o'clock,  post  meridian,  on  the  first  Thursday  in 
February,  A.  D.  1877,  and  the  President  of  the  Senate  shall  be 
their  presiding  officer.  Two  tellers  shall  be  previously  appointed 
on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and  two  on  the  part  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  to  whom  shall  be  handed,  as  they  are  opened 
by  the  President  of  the  Senate,  all  the  certificates  and  papers 
purporting  to  be  certificates  of  the  electoral  votes,  which  certifi 
cates  and  papers  shall  be  opened,  presented,  and  acted  upon  in 
the  alphabetical  order  of  the  States,  beginning  with  the  letter  A; 
and  said  tellers  having  then  read  the  same  in  the  presence  and 
hearing  of  the  two  houses,  shall  make  a  list  of  the  votes  as  they 
shall  appear  from  the  said  certificates ;  and  the  votes  having  been 
ascertained  and  counted  as  in  this  act  provided,  the  result  of 
the  same  shall  be  delivered  to  the  President  of  the  Senate,  who 
shall  thereupon  announce  the  state  of  the  vote  and  the  names 
of  the  persons,  if  any,  elected,  which  announcement  shall  be 
deemed  a  sufficient  declaration  of  the  persons  elected  President 
and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  and,  together  with  a 
list  of  the  votes,  shall  be  entered  upon  the  journals  of  the  two 
houses.  Upon  such  reading  of  any  such  certificate,  or  paper, 
when  there  shall  be  only  one  return  from  a  State,  the  President 
of  the  Senate  shall  call  for  objections,  if  any.  Every  objection 
shall  be  made  in  writing,  and  shall  state  clearly  and  concisely, 
and  without  argument,  the  ground  thereof,  and  shall  be  signed 
by  at  least  one  Senator  and  one  member  of  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  before  the  same  shall  be  received.  When  all  ob 
jections  so  made  to  any  vote  or  paper  from  a  State  shall  have 


346  Appendix 

been  received  and  read,  the  Senate  shall  thereupon  withdraw, 
and  such  objections  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  its 
decision,  and  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  shall 
in  like  manner  submit  such  objections  to  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  for  its  decision,  and  no  electoral  vote  or  votes  from 
any  State  from  which  but  one  return  has  been  received  shall 
be  rejected  except  by  the  affirmative  vote  of  the  two  houses. 
When  the  two  houses  have  voted  they  shall  immediately  again 
meet,  and  the  presiding  officer  shall  then  announce  the  decision 
of  the  question  submitted. 

SEC.  2.  That  if  more  than  one  return  or  paper,  purporting 
to  be  a  return  from  a  State,  shall  have  been  received  by  the 
President  of  the  Senate,  purporting  to  be  the  certificates  of  the 
electoral  votes  given  at  the  last  preceding  election  for  President 
and  Vice-President  in  such  State,  unless  they  shall  be  duplicates 
of  the  same  return,  all  such  returns  and  papers  shall  be  opened 
by  him  in  the  presence  of  the  two  houses  when  met  as  afore* 
said,  and  read  by  the  tellers ;  and  all  such  returns  and  papers 
shall  thereupon  be  submitted  to  the  judgment  and  decision,  as 
to  which  is  the  true  and  lawful  electoral  vote  of  such  State, 
of  a  commission  constituted  as  follows,  namely: 

During  the  session  of  each  house  on  the  Tuesday  next  pre 
ceding  the  first  Thursday  in  February,  A.  D.  1877,  each  house 
shall  by  viva  voce  vote  appoint  five  of  its  members,  who,  with 
the  five  associate  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  to  be  ascertained  as  hereinafter  provided,  shall  consti 
tute  a  commission  for  the  decision  of  all  questions  upon  or  in 
respect  of  such  double  returns  named  in  this  section.  On  the 
Tuesday  next  preceding  the  first  Thursday  in  February,  A.  D. 
1877,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  may  be,  the  associate  justices 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  now  assigned  to  the 
first,  third,  eighth,  and  ninth  circuits,  shall  select,  in  such  man 
ner  as  a  majority  of  them  shall  deem  fit,  another  of  the  asso 
ciate  justices  of  said  court,  which  five  persons  shall  be  mem 
bers  of  said  commission ;  and  the  person  longest  in  com 
mission  of  said  five  justices  shall  be  the  president  of  said  com 
mission.  Members  of  said  commission  shall  respectively  take 
and  subscribe  the  following  oath : — 

"I ,    do   solemnly   swear    (or  affirm,   as   the 

case  may  be)  that  I  will  impartially  examine  and  consider  all 
questions  submitted  to  the  commission  of  which  I  am  a  mem 
ber,  and  a  true  judgment  give  thereon,  agreeably  to  the  Consti 
tution  and  the  laws,  so  help  me  God." 


Appendix  347 

Which  oath  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  the  Senate. 
When  the  commission  shall  have  been  thus  organized  it  shall  not 
be  in  the  power  of  either  house  to  dissolve  the  same,  or  to 
withdraw  any  of  its  members;  but  if  any  such  Senator  or  mem 
ber  shall  die,  or  become  physically  unable  to  perform  the  duties 
required  by  this  act,  the  fact  of  such  death  or  physical  inability 
shall  be  by  said  commission,  before  it  shall  proceed  further,  com 
municated  to  the  Senate  or  House  of  Representatives,  as  the  case 
may  be,  which  body  shall  immediately  and  without  debate  pro 
ceed  by  viva  voce  vote  to  fill  the  place  so  vacated,  and  the  per 
son  so  appointed  shall  take  and  subscribe  the  oath  hereinbefore 
prescribed,  and  become  a  member  of  said  commission ;  and,  in 
like  manner,  if  any  of  said  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall 
die  or  become  physically  incapable  of  performing  the  duties  re 
quired  by  this  act,  the  other  of  said  justices,  members  of  the  said 
commission,  shall  immediately  appoint  another  justice  of  said 
court  a  member  of  said  commission  (and  in  such  appointments 
regard  shall  be  had  to  the  impartiality  and  freedom  from  bias 
sought  by  the  original  appointments  to  said  commission),  who 
shall  thereupon  immediately  take  and  subscribe  to  the  oath  here 
inbefore  prescribed,  and  become  a  member  of  said  commission 
to  fill  the  vacancy  so  occasioned. 

All  the  certificates  and  papers  purporting  to  be  certificates 
of  the  electoral  votes  of  each  State  shall  be  opened  in  the  alpha 
betical  order  of  the  States  as  provided  in  section  1  of  this  act; 
and  when  there  shall  be  more  than  one  such  certificate  or  paper, 
as  the  certificate  and  papers  from  such  States  shall  so  be  opened 
(excepting  duplicates  of  the  same  return),  they  shall  be  read 
by  the  tellers,  and  thereupon  the  president  of  the  Senate  shall 
call  for  objections  if  any.  Every  objection  shall  be  made  in 
writing,  and  shall  state  clearly  and  concisely,  and  without  argu 
ment,  the  ground  thereof,  and  shall  be  signed  by  at  least  one 
Senator  and  one  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  before 
the  same  shall  be  received.  When  all  such  objections  so  made 
to  any  certificate,  vote,  or  paper  from  a  State  shall  have  been 
received  and  read,  all  such  certificates,  votes,  and  papers  so 
objected  to,  and  all  papers  accompanying  the  same,  together 
with  such  objections,  shall  be  forthwith  submitted  to  said  com 
mission,  which  shall  proceed  to  consider  the  same,  with  the 
same  powers,  if  any,  now  possessed  for  that  purpose  by  the  two 
houses,  acting  separately  or  together,  and,  by  a  majority  of 
votes,  decide  whether  any  and  what  votes  from  such  State  are 
the  votes  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 


348  Appendix 

and  how  many  and  what  persons  were  duly  appointed  electors 
in  such  State ;  and  may  therein  take  into  view  such  petitions, 
depositions,  and  other  papers,  if  any,  as  shall,  by  the  Consti 
tution  and  now  existing  law,  be  competent  and  pertinent  in 
such  consideration,  which  decision  shall  be  made  in  writing, 
stating  briefly  the  ground  thereof,  and  signed  by  the  members 
of  said  commission  agreeing  therein ;  whereupon  the  two  houses 
shall  again  meet,  and  such  decision  shall  be  read  and  entered 
in  the  journal  of  each  house,  and  the  counting  of  the  votes 
shall  proceed  in  conformity  therewith,  unless,  upon  objection 
made  thereto  in  writing  by  at  least  five  Senators  and  five  mem 
bers  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  two  houses  shall 
separately  concur  in  ordering  otherwise,  in  which  case  such  con 
current  order  shall  govern.  No  votes  or  papers  from  any  other 
State  shall  be  acted  upon  until  the  objections  previously  made 
to  the  votes  or  papers  from  any  State  shall  have  been  finally 
disposed  of. 

SEC.  3.  That  while  the  two  houses  shall  be  in  meeting, 
as  provided  in  this  act,  no  debate  shall  be  allowed,  and  no 
question  shall  be  put  by  the  presiding  officer,  except  to  either 
house  on  a  motion  to  withdraw,  and  he  shall  have  power  to 
preserve  order. 

SEC.  4.  That  when  the  two  houses  separate  to  decide  upon 
an  objection  that  may  have  been  made  to  the  counting  of  any 
electoral  vote  or  votes  from  any  State,  or  upon  objection  to  a 
report  of  said  commission,  or  other  question  arising  under  this 
act,  each  Senator  and  Representative  may  speak  to  such  objec 
tion  or  question  ten  minutes,  and  not  oftener  than  once ;  but, 
after  such  debate  shall  have  lasted  two  hours,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  each  house  to  put  the  main  question  without  further 
debate. 

SEC.  5.  That  at  such  joint  meeting  of  the  two  houses 
seats  shall  be  provided  as  follows :  For  the  President  of  the 
Senate,  the  Speaker's  chair ;  for  the  Speaker,  immediately  upon 
his  left ;  for  the  Senators  in  the  body  of  the  hall,  upon  the  right 
of  the  presiding  officer;  for  the  Representatives,  in  the  body  of 
the  hall  not  provided  for  the  Senators ;  for  the  tellers,  Secretary 
of  the  Senate,  and  clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  at  the 
Clerk's  desk ;  for  the  other  officers  of  the  two  houses,  in  front 
of  the  Clerk's  desk,  and  upon  each  side  of  the  Speaker's  plat 
form.  Such  joint  meeting  shall  not  be  dissolved  until  the  count 
of  the  electoral  votes  shall  be  completed  and  the  result  declared ; 
and  no  recess  shall  be  taken  unless  a  question  shall  have  arisen 


Appendix  349 

in  regard  to  counting  any  such  votes  or  otherwise  under  this 
act,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  competent  for  either  house,  acting 
separately  in  the  manner  hereinbefore  provided,  to  direct  a  re 
cess  of  such  house,  not  beyond  the  next  day,  Sunday  excepted, 
at  the  hour  of  ten  o'clock  in  the  forenoon ;  and  while  any  ques 
tion  is  being  considered  by  said  commission,  either  house  may 
proceed  with  its  legislative  or  other  business. 

SEC.  6.  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  held  to  impair 
or  affect  any  right  now  existing  under  the  Constitution  and  laws 
to  question  by  proceeding  in  the  judicial  courts  of  the  United 
States  the  right  or  title  of  the  person  who  shall  be  declared 
elected,  or  who  shall  claim  to  be  President  or  Vice-President  of 
the  United  States,  if  any  such  right  exists. 

SEC.  7.  That  said  commission  shall  make  its  own  rules,  keep 
a  record  of  its  proceedings,  and  shall  have  power  to  employ  such 
persons  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  transaction  of  its  busi 
ness  and  the  execution  of  its  powers. 


INDEX 


ABBEVILLE,  political  rally  at,  136. 

Abbott,  Josiah  G.,  a  member  of 
the  Commission,  220 ;  men 
tioned,  336. 

Abbott,  Mr.,  nominates  Joel 
Parker,  33. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  Sr.,  at 
tends  Fifth  Avenue  Confer 
ence,  15  ;  favors  Bristow,  17  ; 
supports  Tilden,  38. 

Adams,  Dock,  complaint  made 
against,  131. 

Address  of  Fifth  Avenue  Con 
ference,  17. 

Affidavit  "mills,"  in  Louisiana, 
104. 

Aiken,  D.  W.,  makes  a  violent 
harangue  to  Democrats,  136 ; 
violent  utterances  at  Abbe 
ville,  137. 

Alabama,  suppression  of  votes 
in,  76 ;  Senate  orders  an  in 
vestigation  of  election  in,  174. 

Alachua  county,  alleged  frauds 
in,  73,  310. 

Allen,  William,  defeated  by 
Hayes,  15  ;  supported  by  Ohio 
Democrats  for  Presidential 
nomination,  27  ;  name  present 
ed  to  the  convention,  33  ;  vote 
for,  34-35. 

American  Nationals,  convention 
of,  39. 

Anderson,  James  E.,  confession 
of,  311-312. 

Anderson,  Thomas  C.,  member 
Louisiana  returning  board, 
98 ;  takes  Louisiana  returns 
to  Washington,  115;  convicted 
of  falsifying  a  return,  116  ; 
released,  117  ;  mentioned,  171. 

Andersonvllle,  horrors  of  harped 
upon  by  Republicans,  40. 


Antoine,  C.  C.,  nominated  for 
lieutenant-governor  of  Louis 
iana,  87  ;  declared  elected,  294. 

Archer  Precinct  No.  2,  alleged 
frauds  at,  73. 

Arkansas,  question  of  counting 
electoral  votes  of  in  1873, 
181-183. 

Artillery  companies,  formed  by 
South  Carolina  Democrats, 
136. 


BABCOCK,  Orville  E.,  prosecu 
tion  of,  4. 

Baker  county,  situation  in,  68 ; 
mentioned,  74. 

Banks,  General  Nathaniel  P., 
quoted,  144. 

Barlow,  Francis  C.,  a  witness 
of  the  Florida  count,  67  ;  opin 
ion  regarding  result  in  Flor 
ida,  75. 

Barnwell,   frauds  in,   150. 

Bartholomew,  Linn,  nominates 
Hartranft,  21. 

Bayard,  Thomas  F.,  candidate 
for  Presidential  nomination, 
26 ;  supporters  of,  27 ;  name 
presented  to  convention,  33 ; 
vote  for,  34-35;  appointed  a 
member  of  a  Senate  commit 
tee,  193;  thinks  judges  will 
not  be  affected  by  party  feel 
ing,  202  ;  speaks  in  behalf  of 
the  Electoral  Commission  bill, 
213 ;  a  member  of  the  Com 
mission,  220;  mentioned,  225; 
votes  with  Republicans  on 
Humphreys  case,  236 ;  speech 
on  Louisiana  decision,  245; 
credit  due,  334 ;  Inconsistency 
of,  336. 


352 


INDEX 


Beaufort,    intimidation   in,    145. 

Beebe,  George  M.,  stands  on  a 
desk  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  277. 

Bigelow,  John,  partisan  view  of 
the  Pinkerton  case,  108  ;  com 
piles  debates  on  electoral 
counts,  199. 

Black,  Jeremiah  S.,  damns  the 
Commission,  264. 

Blackburn,  Joseph  C.,  an  irre 
concilable,  257  ;  delivers  swan- 
song  of  the  filibusters,  280. 

Elaine,  James  G.,  candidate  for 
Presidential  nomination,  11 ; 
prospects  of,  12,  13  ;  illness  of, 
18  ;  believes  Bristow  instigates 
attacks  on  him,  19;  name  pre 
sented  in  convention,  22  ;  vote 
for,  22-25 ;  mentioned,  40. 

Blair,  Montgomery,  works  for 
Tilden's  nomination,  31; 
speech  on  the  South  Carolina 
case,  264. 

Bloxham  vs.  Board  of  State  Can 
vassers,  66. 

Bond,  Judge  Hugh  L.,  releases 
members  of  South  Carolina 
canvassing  board,  154. 

Booth,  Newton,  declines  nomin 
ation  by  Greenbackers,  39. 

Boutwell,  George  S.,  speech  on 
the  Louisiana  decision,  245. 

Boynton,  H.  V.,  induces  Presi 
dent  not  to  commission  J.  E. 
Anderson,  311. 

Bradley,  Joseph  P.,  selected  as 
the  fifth  judge,  221;  votes 
against  going  behind  the  re 
turns,  234 ;  denounced  by 
Democrats,  234,  259. 

Brady,  T.  J.,  a  custodian  of  the 
cipher  dispatches,  315;  exam 
ined  by  Potter  Committee,  322. 

Brannan,  Gen.  John  M.,  admit 
ted  to  sessions  of  Florida  re 
turning  board,  65. 

Brewster,  O.  H.,  Louisiana  elec 
tor,  objected  to  as  ineligible, 
114,  240;  mentioned,  339. 

Bristow,  Benjamin  H.,  candidate 
for  Presidential  nomination, 
11;  by  whom  supported,  14; 
destroyer  of  the  Whiskey 
Ring,  14 ;  favored  by  Fifth 
Avenue  Conference,  17 ;  sup 
porters  of  at  Cincinnati,  17 ; 
calls  on  Blaine,  19  ;  name  pre 
sented  to  the  convention,  21  ; 


votes  received  by,  22-25;  men 
tioned,    38. 

Brooks,  Alexander,  Democratic 
theory  that  he  killed  Pinkston, 
107. 

Brown,  B.  Gratz,  candidate  for 
Vice-President,  2. 

Brown,  John  Young,  deprecates 
violence,  176 ;  receives  letters 
from  Foster,  271 ;  gives  cop 
ies  to  other  persons,  272  ;  pub 
lishes,  298. 

Brown,  Joseph  E.,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Florida,  ft4. 

Bryant,  William  Cullen,  signs 
call  for  conference  of  inde 
pendents,  15. 

Buchanan,  James,  government 
expeditures  under,  4. 

Buchanan,  James,  not  in  charge 
at  Washington,  171. 

Bullock,  Alexander  H.,  signs 
call  for  conference  of  inde 
pendents,  15. 

Bullock,  George  E.,  custodian  of 
the  cipher  dispatches,  315. 

Burke,  E.  A.,  attends  Wormley 
Conference,  269;  receives  cop 
ies  of  certain  letters,  272. 

Burnell,  Henry,  testifies  concern 
ing  political  outrages  in  Oua- 
chita,  105. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.,  a  dispen 
ser  of  patronage,  5,  7  ;  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Potter  Committee, 
308. 

Butler,  M.  C.,  demands  that 
Hamburg  militia  company 
shall  give  up  their  arms,  131 ; 
receives  copies  of  the  Foster 
letters,  272. 

CAINHOY,  political  riot  at,  145. 

Cameron,  Simon,  a  dispenser  of 
patronage,  5,  7. 

Campbellton  Precinct,  thrown 
out  by  returning  board,  71. 

Canal  Ring,  overthrown  by  Til- 
den,  29. 

Canal   Ring,   mentioned,    41. 

Cardoza,  F.  L.,  attempt  to  se 
cure  removal  of,  127 ;  renom- 
inated,  135. 

Carpenter,  Judge,  decision  re 
garding  claims  of  Chamber 
lain  and  Hampton,  292. 

Cartwright,  J.  C.,  chosen  elector 
in  Oregon,  162  ;  election  of 
certified  by  Grover,  163  ;  helps 


INDEX 


353 


to    organize    electoral    college, 
164  ;  votes  for  Hayes,  165. 
Cary,    Edward,    writes    editorial 

in  New  York  Times,  47. 
Cary,  Samuel  F.,  runs  for  Vice- 
President  on  Greenback  ticket, 
39. 

Casanave,  Gadane,  member 
Louisiana  returning  board,  98. 
Centennial  Exposition,  1. 
Chamberlain,  Daniel  H.,  receives 
telegram  from  W.  E.  Chand 
ler,  51 ;  career  of,  126  ;  inau 
gurated  governor,  127  ;  refuses 
to  commission  Whipper  and 
Moses,  128  ;  is  favored  by  Co- 
operationists,  129;  why  op 
posed  by  many  Democrats, 
130 ;  attitude  on  Hamburg 
massacre,  132 ;  renominated, 
135;  describes  Democratic 
campaign  methods,  136  ;  order 
ed  rifle  clubs  to  disperse,  143  ; 
appoints  election  officers,  148  ; 
declared  elected,  291 ;  attempts 
to  pardon  a  prisoner,  292 ; 
receives  a  letter  from  Mat 
thews,  295  ;  goes  to  Washing 
ton,  296;  gives  up  the  con 
test,  297  ;  title  of,  301. 
Chandler,  William  E.,  at  Fifth 
Avenue  Hotel,  50-51;  sends 
telegrams  to  doubtful  states, 
51 ;  goes  to  Florida,  54 ;  ar 
rives  there,  64  ;  attacks  Pres 
ident's  Southern  policy,  300 ; 
alleged  promises  of,  310  ;  ex 
amined  by  Potter  Committee, 
322. 

Chandler,  Zachariah,  manages 
Republican  campaign,  42 ; 
sought  by  Mr.  Reid,  50 ; 
claims  election  of  Hayes,  52', 
mentioned,  173 ;  replies  to 
Hewitt,  189. 

Charleston,  riot  in,  141 ;  intimi 
dation  in,  145;  repeating  in, 
147. 

Christiancy,  Isaac  P.,  speaks  in 
behalf    of    Electoral    Commis 
sion  bill,   213. 
Cipher    dispatches,    chapter    on, 

305. 

Clarke,   H.   C.,   privy  to   forgery 
of    signatures    to      Louisiana 
electoral  certificates,   116. 
Cleveland,      Grover,      signs      an 
electoral  count  bill,   305. 


Clews  Banking  Company  scan 
dal,  harped  on  by  Democrats, 
39. 

Clifford,  Nathan,  mentioned,  198, 
202 ;  to  be  a  member  of  the 
Electoral  Commission,  203 ; 
meets  with  other  judicial 
members,  221 ;  president  of 
the  Commission,  224 ;  votes 
with  Republicans  on  question 
of  Humphreys,  236. 
Clymer,  Hiester,  nominates 
Hancock,  33  ;  a  leader  of  the 
filibusters,  258 ;  denounces 
Bradley,  260. 

Cocke,  William  A.,  member  Flor 
ida  returning  board,  64  ;  opin 
ion  concerning  the  board's 
powers,  66  ;  concurs  in  action 
regarding  Baker  county,  70; 
protests  against  exclusion  of 
Jasper  Precinct  No.  2,  71 ; 
changes  opinion  regarding 
precinct  in  Key  West,  71 ;  op 
poses  rejection  of  precincts  in 
Jackson  county,  72 ;  certifies 
return  made  by  Democratic 
claimants  in  Florida,  77. 
Coker,  Simon  P.,  murdered,  142. 
Conkling,  Roscoe,  a  dispenser  of 
patronage,  5,  7  ;  candidate  for 
Presidential  nomination,  11 ; 
quarrel  with  Blaine,  12;  sup 
ported  by  the  Administration, 
13 ;  name  presented  to  con 
vention,  21 ;  votes  received  by, 
23-25;  opinion  upon  power  of 
Congress  to  go  behind  returns, 
182  ;  appointed  a  member  of  a 
Senate  committee,  193;  agrees 
to  work  for  passage  of  the 
Electoral  Commission  bill, 
210  ;  speaks  in  its  behalf,  212  ; 
why  not  chosen  a  member  of 
the  Commission,  221. 
Conover,  S.  B.,  receives  telegram 

from  W.  E.  Chandler,  51. 
Convention,  Republican  at  Cin 
cinnati,  17  et  seq.;  Democra 
tic  at  St.  Louis,  30  et  seq;  of 
Prohibitionists,  38  ;  of  Green- 
backers,  39  ;  of  American  Na 
tionals,  39  ;  of  Louisiana  Re 
publicans,  88;  of  Louisiana 
Democrats,  88  ;  of  South  Car 
olina  Republicans,  128,  135; 
of  South  Carolina  Democrats, 
133. 


354 


INDEX 


Cook,  James,  killed  at  Hamburg, 

Cooper,  Edward,  corroborates 
testimony  of  Pelton  and  oth 
ers,  324. 

Cooper,  Peter,  nominated  by 
Greenbackers,  39 ;  burlesque 
certificate  from  Louisiana  cer 
tifies  that  electoral  votes  of 
that  state  are  cast  for,  239. 
Co-operationists,  favor  support 
ing-  Chamberlain  in  1876,  129  ; 
defeated  in  Democratic  con 
vention,  133. 

Corse,   Gen.  J.  M.,  in  movement 

to  seat  Tilden  by  force,   188; 

to  be  commander-in-chief,  194. 

Cowgill,     Clayton     A.,     member 

Florida  returning  board,  64. 
Cox,  Jacob  D.,  a  member  of  the 

Potter    Committee,    309. 
Cox,  M.  J.,  part  of  in  canvassing 

votes  of  Baker  county,   69. 
Cox,    S.    S.,    speech    of    on    the 
Louisiana  decision,  247;  an  Ir 
reconcilable,    257. 
Coyle,    John    F.,    a    Democratic 

visitor  in  Florida,   65. 
Crapo,    William    W.,    speech    on 

Louisiana  decision,    249. 
Credit    Mobilier,    3 ;    harped    on 

by  Democrats,  39. 
Creoles,  form  large  part  of  pop 
ulation  of  Louisiana,  81. 
Cronin,  E.  A.,  Oregon  Democrats 
claim  election  of,  159  ;  election 
of  certified  by  Grover,  163 ; 
receives  certificate  from  tha 
secretary  of  state,  164 ;  ap 
points  Miller  an  "elector," 
votes  for  Tilden,  and  carries 
the  returns  to  Washington, 
165;  mentioned,  167;  Commis 
sion  votes  that  his  certificate 
does  not  contain  the  vote  of 
Oregon,  255;  denounced  by 
Republicans,  256. 
Cumback,  Will,  withdraws  Mor 
ton's  name,  24. 

Curtis,  George  W.,  seconds  nom 
ination  of  Brlstow,  21 ;  speech 
of  on  Forefather's  Day,    193. 
Custer,    Gen.    George    A.,    killed 

by    Indians,    1. 

Courier,         Evansville,         declares 
Tilden    will     be     inaugurated, 


DANA,  Richard  H.,  seconds  nom 
ination  of  Bristow,  21. 

Davis,  Judge  David,  receives 
electoral  votes  in  1872,  2  • 
mentioned,  198 ;  discussion 
concerning  his  politics,  200  • 
mentioned,  202,  209  ;  expected 
that  he  would  be  a  member 
of  the  Commission,  218;  elec 
ted  U.  S.  Senator,  219  ;  refuses 
to  sit  on  the  Commission,  221 ; 
mentioned  by  Woodworth,  260 

Davis,  Edmund  J.,  moves 
amendment  to  Republican 
platform,  20. 

Democratic  Veteran  Soldiers' 
Association,  188. 

Dennis,  J.  B.,  excludes  Demo 
cratic  claimants  from  South 
Carolina  legislature,  288. 

Dennis,  L.  G.,  confessions  of, 
310. 

Dennison,  William,  at  Wormley 
conference,  269. 

Dinkgrave,  J.  H.,  murder  of 
109. 

Dix,  John  A.,  defeated  by  Til 
den,  29. 

Doolittle,  James  R.,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95. 

Dorman,  John,  assists  Cox  in 
canvassing  votes  of  Baker 
county,  69. 

Dorsheimer,  William,  works  for 
Tilden's  nomination,  31. 

Downs,  D.  L.,  objection  to  re 
ceiving  his  vote  as  an  elector, 
279. 

Drew,  George  F.,  Democratic 
candidate  for  governor  of 
Florida,  admitted  to  sessions 
of  Florida  returning  board, 
65;  petitions  for  a  manda 
mus,  77 ;  votes  received  by, 
78 ;  inaugurated,  79. 

Driggers,  Elisha  W.,  notifies 
clerk  of  Baker  county  can 
vass,  68 ;  canvasses  the  vote 
of  that  county,  69. 

Driver,    Randall,   whipped,    109. 

Dunn,  T.  C.,  put  on  Republican 
ticket  in  South  Carolina,  135. 

Durell,  Judge  E.  H.,  issues  "mid 
night  restraining  order,"  86. 

Duval  county,  irregularities  in 
return  from,  74. 


INDEX 


355 


EAST  BATON  ROUGE,  a  "select 
ed"  parish,  90 ;  vote  in,  118 ; 
mentioned,  120 ;  supervisors 
throw  out  polls  in,  113. 

Easterlin's  Mill,  Democratic 
club  at  adopts  resolutions 
against  having  business  deal 
ings  with  Republicans,  139. 

East  Feliciana,  a  "selected"  par 
ish,  90  ;  violence  in,  110  ;  vote 
of  thrown  out,  113 ;  vote  of, 
118 ;  mentioned,  120. 

Eaton,  Dorman  B.,  attends  Fifth 
Avenue  Conference,  15. 

Edgefleld,  frauds  in,  148 ;  pro 
tests  against,  150  ;  thrown  out 
by  returning  board,  153 ; 
ought  to  have  been  excluded, 
156. 

Edmunds,  George  F.,  suggests  a 
commission  for  counting  the 
electoral  vote,  186  ;  introduces 
a  resolution  looking  toward 
compromise,  192 ;  proposes  a 
committee  of  thirteen,  198 ; 
does  not  consider  Davis  an 
Independent,  201 ;  reads  draft 
of  a  report  to  accompany  the 
Electoral  Commission  bill, 
203  ;  makes  a  speech  in  behalf 
of  the  bill,  210;  a  member  of 
the  Commission,  220 ;  men 
tioned,  225;  mentioned,  334; 
question  of  his  consistency, 
336. 

Ellerton,  race  conflict  in,   142. 

Ellis,  E.  J.,  attends  Wormley 
Conference,  269  ;  receives  cop 
ies  of  certain  letters  from 
Brown,  272. 

Elliott,  R.  B.,  put  on  Republi 
can  ticket  in  South  Carolina, 
135. 

Emma  Mine  scandal,  harped  on 
by  the  Democrats,  39. 

Evarts,  William  M.,  counsel 
before  the  Commission,  226; 
indorses  letter  to  Chamber 
lain,  295. 

Ewing,  Thomas,  signs  minority 
report  at  St.  Louis,  33. 

Express,  the  New  York,  makes 
incendiary  utterances,  169. 

FERRY,  Thomas  W.,  allows  An 
derson  to  take  back  Louisiana 
certificate,  115;  mentioned, 
173,  208  ;  would  declare  Hayes 
elected,  177  ;  rumor  that  Sher 


man  would  support  him,  187; 
will  "shirk  no  responsibility," 
194;  calls  joint  session  to  or 
der,  223  ;  action  on  the  bogus 
Vermont  return,  274-275 ;  an 
nounces  the  final  result,  282. 

Field,  D.  D.,  elected  to  Congress 
to  represent  Tilden,  191 ;  coun 
sel  before  Commission,  225; 
an  objector  in  the  Florida 
case,  226 ;  submits  an  objec 
tion  in  joint-session  to  count 
ing  the  votes  from  Florida, 
237  ;  bill  to  regulate  the  suc 
cession  to  the  Presidency,  273. 

Field,  Judge  Stephen  J.,  men 
tioned,  198 ;  to  be  a  member 
of  the  Electoral  Commission, 
203 ;  meets  with  other  judi 
cial  members,  221. 

Fifteenth  Amendment,  never 
really  accepted  by  the  South, 
58. 

Fifth  Avenue  Conference,  16; 
members  of  generally  support 
Hayes,  38. 

Florida,  rumors  of  intimidation 
in,  44;  chapter  on,  57;  inves 
tigating  committees  sent  to, 
173,  174  ;  case  of  before  Con 
gress  and  the  Commission, 
223-238;  mentioned,  175,  307, 
308,  309,  310,  330,  332,  338, 
339. 

Foord,  John,  present  at  Times 
editorial  council,  47. 

Foster,  Charles,  outlines  Hayes's 
Southern  policy,  268 ;  gives 
letters  to  Brown,  271-272. 

Frazier,   Willis,   whipped,    109. 

Frelinghuysen,  Frederick  T., 
name  presented  for  Vice-Pres 
idential  nomination,  25 ;  sug 
gests  plans  for  counting  the 
electoral  votes,  186 ;  appoint 
ed  a  member  of  a  senate  com 
mittee,  192  ;  speaks  in  behalf 
of  Electoral  Commission  bill, 
212 ;  a  member  of  the  Com 
mission,  220. 

Friendship  Church  Precinct, 
thrown  out  by  returning 
board,  71. 

Frye,  W.  P.,  member  of  a  con 
gressional  investigating  com 
mittee,  99. 


356 


INDEX 


GARFIELD,  James  A.,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95 ; 
speaks  against  Electoral  Com 
mission  bill,  206 ;  a  member 
of  the  Commission,  220 ;  at 
Wormley  Conference,  269 ; 
elected  President,  328;  men 
tioned,  336. 

Georgia,  Senate  orders  investi 
gation  of  election  in,  174 ; 
electoral  votes  of  counted  in 
the  alternative  in  1869,  181. 

Georgians,  vote  in  South  Caro 
lina,  146. 

Gibson,  A.  M.,  absurd  view  of 
the  Pinkston  case,  108. 

Gibson,  Randall,  presenjts  an 
objection  against  counting  the 
votes  of  Louisiana,  244. 

Cleaves,  R.  H.,  presides  over 
South  Carolina  Senate,  288; 
declared  re-elected,  291. 

Godwin,  Parke,  attends  Fifth 
Avenue  Conference,  16 ;  sup 
ports  Tilden,  38. 

Gordon,  John  B.,  thinks  Tilden 
is  certain  of  victory,  209 ;  at 
a  secret  conference,  269. 

Grant,  Gen.  U.  S.,  re-elected 
President,  2 ;  government  ex 
penditures  under,  4 ;  misgov- 
ernment  under,  5-6  ;  praised  in 
Republican  platform,  2 1 ; 
writes  to  Gen.  Harry  White 
concerning  third  term,  11;  or 
der  to  General  Sherman,  55 ; 
mentioned,  171,  208  ;  reported 
that  he  would  declare  him 
self  dictator,  172 ;  Democrats 
wish  to  impeach,  175;  rumor 
that  he  intended  to  imprison 
Democrats,  187 ;  anxious  for 
a  compromise,  191 ;  approves 
Electoral  Commission  bill, 
220  ;  promises  to  preserve  the 
status  quo  in  Louisiana,  271, 
278;  course  of  during  the 
crisis,  284 ;  causes  Hayes  to 
be  secretly  sworn  in,  286-287; 
credit  due  to,  334. 

Grant  parish,  vote  of  thrown 
out,  113. 

Greeley,  Horace,  candidate  for 
President,  2. 

Greenbackers,  see  Independent 
Nationals. 

Grosvenor,  William  M.,  deciph 
ers  cipher  dispatches,  316. 


Grover,  L.  F.,  governor  of  Ore 
gon,  158  ;  receives  a  telegram 
from  Hewitt,  159;  issues  a 
certificate  to  Cronin,  163 ; 
burned  in  effigy,  166 ;  men 
tioned,  254;  denounced,  256. 

Gwin,  William  M.,  works  for 
Tilden's  nomination,  31. 


HALE,  Eugene,  a  "visiting  states 
man"  in  Louisiana,  95. 

Hamburg   Massacre,    131. 

Hamilton  county,  action  of  re 
turning  board  on,  70. 

Hampton,  Wade,  nominated  for 
governor  of  South  Carolina, 
133  ;  declared  elected,  291 ;  at 
tempts  to  pardon  a  prisoner, 
292  ;  payment  of  taxes  to,  293  ; 
goes  to  Washington,  296 ;  re 
ceives  the  executive  office, 
297  ;  mentioned,  304. 

Hancock,  Gen.  Winfield  S.,  talk 
ed  of  for  Presidential  nomin 
ation,  26  ;  supporters  of,  27  ; 
name  presented  to  convention, 
33 ;  vote  for,  34-35 ;  rumor 
that  he  was  to  be  transferred 
to  the  west,  187. 

Harlan,  Gen.  John  M.,  nomin 
ates  Bristow,  21 ;  member  of 
the  MacVeagh  Commission, 
298. 

Hartranft,  John  F.,  candidate 
for  Presidential  nomination, 
12 ;  supporters  of,  15 ;  name 
presented  in  convention,  21 ; 
votes  received  by,  22-25. 

Hassard,  John  R.  G.,  deciphers 
cipher  dispatches,  316. 

Hawley,  Joseph  R.,  name  pre 
sented  for  Vice-Presidential 
nomination,  25 ;  member  of 
MacVeagh  Commission,  298. 

Hayes,  Rutherford  B.,  candidate 
for  Presidential  nomination, 
15 ;  name  presented  in  con 
vention,  21;  votes  received  by, 
23-25  ;  nominated,  25  ;  how 
nomination  of  was  received, 
36 ;  his  letter  of  acceptance, 
37  ;  Florida  electors  cast  their 
votes  for,  76  ;  entitled  to  votes 
of  Florida,  76  ;  vote  for  elec 
tors  supporting  in  Louisiana, 
94 ;  Louisiana  electors  vote 
for,  114 ;  has  a  majority  in 
South  Carolina,  151,  152;  elec- 


INDEX 


357 


tors  in  South  Carolina  vote 
for,  155;  Oregon  electors  vote 
for,  165 ;  mentioned,  172  ;  ex 
pects  to  be  inaugurated,  189  ; 
mentioned,  208 ;  opposed  to 
Electoral  Commission  bill,  210  ; 
votes  of  Florida  counted  for, 
238  ;  votes  of  Louisiana  count 
ed  for,  249 ;  votes  of  Oregon 
counted  for,  257;  attempts  of 
Democrats  to  exact  pledge 
from  his  friends,  268 ;  his 
friends  guarantee  that  he  will 
allow  the  Republican  state 
governments  in  the  South  to 
fall,  270;  declared  elected, 
282 ;  reaches  Washington, 
286 ;  secretly  sworn  in,  287 ; 
summons  Hampton  and  Cham 
berlain  to  Washington,  297 ; 
sends  a  commission  to  Louis 
iana,  298;  Southern  policy  at 
tacked,  300 ;  wisdom  of  this 
policy,  302,  304 ;  called  a  us 
urper,  306  ;  policy  of  alienates 
Southern  Republicans,  308 ; 
mentioned,  334,  342. 

Hendricks,  Thomas  A.,  receives 
electoral  votes  in  1872,  2  ;  can 
didate  for  Presidential  nomin 
ation,  26,  27  ;  name  presented 
to  convention,  33 ;  vote  for, 
34-35;  nominated  for  Vice- 
President,  35  ;  mentioned,  41 ; 
returns  indicate  election  of, 
45 ;  Democratic  electors  in 
Florida  vote  for,  77  ;  Democra 
tic  electors  in  Louisiana  vote 
for,  116 ;  Cronin  votes  for, 
165. 

Herald,  the  New  York.  j?ives  ad 
vice  to  Democrats,  7 ;  harps 
upon  "Caesarism,"  10 ;  gives 
advice  to  Democrats,  169  ;  de 
plores  pronunciamentos,  189 ; 
quoted,  325. 

Hewitt,  Abram  S.,  refuses  to 
purchase  Louisiana  returning 
board,  111 ;  sends  telegram 
to  Oregon,  159;  announces 
election  of  Tilden,  189 ;  has 
an  interview  with  Grant,  191 ; 
appointed  a  member  of  a 
House  committee,  193 ;  con 
sults  Tilden,  199 ;  proposes  a 
plan,  203  ;  delighted  with  Elec 
toral  Commission  bill,  204 ; 
controversy  with  Hoar,  259 ; 
presents  the  bogus  Vermont 
24 


return,  274;  votes  against 
Knott's  resolution,  278 ;  men 
tioned,  334. 

Higginson,  Thomas  W.,  attends 
Fifth  Avenue  Conference,  16. 

Hill,  Benjamin,  refers  to  Demo 
crats  "invincible  in  peace  and 
invisible  in  war,"  176 ;  says 
the  South  is  for  peace,  206. 

Hill,  Elias,  whipped  by  Ku 
Klux,  125. 

Hiscock,  Frank,  a  member  of 
the  Potter  Committee,  308 ; 
mentioned,  324;  cross-exam 
ines  Tilden,  325. 

Hoar,  George  F.,  member  of  a 
Congressional  investigating 
committee,  99 ;  appointed  a 
member  of  a  House  committee, 
193  ;  suggests  plan  for  a  com 
mission,  202  ;  quoted,  204 ;  a 
member  of  the  Commission, 
220;  controversy  with  Hewitt, 
259 ;  credit  due  to,  334 ;  con 
sistency  of,  336. 

Hopkins,  Mark,  attends  Fifth 
Avenue  Conference,  15. 

Household  English  Dictionary, 
employed  in  sending  cipher 
dispatches  to  and  from  Ore 
gon,  160 ;  mentioned,  161. 

Howard,  William  A.,  speaks  for 
Hayes  at  Cincinnati,  23. 

Howe,  Timothy  O.,  describes  in 
timidation  in  Louisiana,  241. 

Humphreys,  F.  C.,  objected  to  as 
ineligible  to  be  chosen  an  elec 
tor,  224 ;  had  resigned  posi 
tion  before  the  election,  229; 
evidence  taken  regarding  his 
eligibility,  235 ;  three  Demo 
crats  vote  that  he  was  eligi 
ble,  236  ;  mentioned,  339. 

Hunton,  Eppa,  appointed  a  mem 
ber  of  a  House  committee, 
193 ;  mentioned,  203 ;  speaks 
in  behalf  of  Electoral  Com 
mission  bill,  205 ;  a  member 
of  the  Commission,  220. 

Hurd,  Frank  H.,  an  objector  in 
the  case  of  Florida,  262. 

Hurlbut,  Stephen  A.,  speaks 
against  Electoral  Commission 
bill,  206. 


353 


INDEX 


INDEPENDENT  Nationals,  conven 
tion  of,  38-39. 

Indiana,  goes  Democratic,  42 ; 
objections  to  receiving  elector 
al  vote  of  in  1817,  179. 

Indianapolis,  Democratic  meet 
ing  at,  195. 

Ingersoll,  Col.  Robert  G.,  nom 
inates  Elaine,  22. 

JACKSON  county,  returning 
board  throws  out  precincts  in, 
71. 

Jasper  Precinct  No.  2,  thrown 
out  by  returning  board,  70. 

Jefferson  county,  alleged  irreg 
ularities  in  conduct  of  the 
election  in,  74. 

Jenks,  Agnes  D.,  may  have  writ 
ten  the  Sherman  letter,  312. 

Jewell,  Marshall,  candidate  for 
Presidential  nomination,  12  ; 
name  presented  to  the  conven 
tion,  21;  votes  received  by,  25. 

Jewett,  D.  J.  M.  A.,  issues  in 
structions  to  supervisors  of 
registration,  92. 

Jillson,  J.  K.,  unable  to  make  a 
speech  because  of  Democratic 
interruptions,  138. 

Johnson,  Primus,  murdered,  105. 

Jones,  A.  O.,  excludes  Democra 
tic  claimants  from  South  Car 
olina  legislature,  288. 

Journal,  The  Indianapolis,  ad 
mits  Republican  defeat,  45 ; 
announces  a  change  in  the 
outlook,  52. 

Julian,  George  W.,  speech  of  on 
8th  of  January,  195. 

KASSON,  John  A.,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Florida,  64  ;  an 
objector  in  the  Florida  case, 
227. 

Kelley,  John,  opposes  Tilden  at 
Utica,  29  ;  at  St.  Louis,  30,  34. 

Kellogg,  Stephen  W.,  nominates 
Jewell,  21. 

Kellogg,  William  P.,  inaugurat 
ed  governor  of  Louisiana,  86  ; 
takes  refuge  in  custom-house, 
87 ;  appoints  registration  of 
ficers,  92  ;  privy  to  forgery  of 
signatures  to  electoral  certi 
ficate,  116 ;  informs  Morton 
that  one  of  the  Louisiana  cer 
tificates  is  irregular,  242 ; 


causes  troops  to  occupy  the 
Louisiana  state  House,  294. 

Kenner,  Louis  M.,  member  Lou 
isiana  returning  board,  98. 

Kernan,  Francis,  works  for  Til- 
den's  nomination,  30 ;  nomin 
ates  Tilden,  33. 

Kent,  Chancellor  James,  quoted 
by  Morton,  211. 

Kerr,  Michael,  death  of  mention 
ed,  173. 

Key  West,  returning  board  ex 
cludes  precinct  in,  71. 

Kirkpatrick,  Donald,  nominated 
by  American  Nationals  for 
Vice-President,  39. 

Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle, 
being  revived  in  the  Middle 
West,  188. 

Knott,  J.  Proctor,  chairman  of 
House  judiciary  committee, 
191 ;  reports  McCrary's  reso- 

•  lution,  192  ;  resolution  of  con 
cerning  the  bogus  Vermont  re 
turns,  276,  278. 

Ku  Klux,  intimidate  negroes  in 
Louisiana,  85 ;  in  South  Car 
olina,  124. 


LAFAYETTE,  supervisors  throw 
out  polls  in,  113. 

La  Fourche,  sxipervisors  throw 
out  returns  in,  113. 

Landry,  intimidation  in,   85. 

Lane,  Lafayette,  a  leader  of  the 
filibusters,  258. 

Laurens,  frauds  in,  150;  thrown 
out  by  returning  board,  153 ; 
ought  to  have  been  excluded, 
156. 

Le  Moyne,  J.  V,,  not  satisfied 
with  the  Democratic  manage 
ment,  259. 

Leon  county,  alleged  frauds  in, 
73. 

Levisse,  A.  B.,  vote  of  objected 
to,  114,  240;  mentioned,  339. 

Levy,  W.  M.,  attends  Wormley 
Conference,  269  ;  advises  Dem 
ocrats  to  allow  the  count  to 
be  completed,  277. 

Liberal  Republicans,  nominate 
Greeley,  2  ;  reforms  denied  by, 
3  ;  tend  to  drift  back  into  Re 
publican  party,  10;  declare 
for  Hayes,  38. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  re-elected  in 
1864,  2. 


INDEX 


359 


Lodge,  Henry  C.,  attends  Fifth 
Avenue  Conference,  16. 

Logan,  John  A.,  appointed  a 
member  of  a  Senate  commit 
tee,  192  ;  defeated  for  re-elec 
tion,  218. 

Logwood,  Eaton,  testifies  con 
cerning  political  outrages  in 
Ouachita,  105. 

Lord,  Scott,  introduces  resolu 
tion  condemning  intimidation, 
42,  43. 

Louisiana,  rumors  from,  44 ; 
chapter  on  election  in,  81 ;  in 
vestigating  committees  sent  to, 
173-174  ;  mentioned,  175  ;  elec 
toral  votes  of  counted  in  1869, 
181;  excluded  in  1873,  181- 
183  ;  dual  government  in,  196  ; 
case  of  before  Congress  and 
the  Commission,  238-249;  set 
tlement  in,  294-295,  297-302; 
mentioned,  329,  330,  332,  339, 
340. 

Lowell,  James  R.,  rumor  that  he 
would  vote  for  Tilden,  173. 


McCLERNAND,  General  John  C., 
permanent  chairman  Democra 
tic  national  convention,  31. 

McCormick,  Cyrus,  spoken  of  for 
Vice-Presidential  nomination, 
35. 

McCrary,  George  W.,  introduces 
a  resolution  looking  to  a 
compromise,  190;  appointed  a 
member  of  a  House  committee, 
193 ;  introduces  a  resolution 
197  ;  speaks  in  behalf  of  Elec 
toral  Commission  bill,  215 ; 
an  objector  in  the  Florida 
case,  227  ;  credit  due  to,  334. 

McEnery,  inaugurated  "govern 
or"  of  Louisiana  but  is  unable 
to  maintain  his  position,  86  ; 
certifies  returns  sent  in  by 
Democratic  "electors,"  238. 

Mackay,  Robert  W.,  accused  of 
tampering  with  convention 
lighting  equipment,  22. 

Mackey,  E.  W.  M.,  elected  speak 
er  by  Republican  legislature, 
288  ;  court  declares  he  is  not 
speaker  of  the  House,  291. 

McLin,    Samuel    B.,    member    of 
Florida    returning   board,    64 ; 
confession  of,  308-311. 
25 


McMahon,  John  A.,  admits  that 
the  Democrats  are  without 
hope,  246. 

McPherson,  Edward,  permanent 
chairman  of  Republican  con 
vention,  20. 

MacVeagh,  Wayne,  a  member  of 
the  Louisiana  Commission, 
298. 

Maddox,  Joseph  H.,  enters  into 
an  alliance  with  Pickett,  111. 

Manatee  county,  thrown  out  by 
returning  board,  72. 

Marble,  Manton,  a  Democratic 
visitor  to  Florida,  65 ;  de 
nounces  Republican  wicked 
ness,  307 ;  statement  to  Mc 
Lin,  311 ;  connection  with  ci 
pher  dispatches,  317-319,  321, 
323. 

Matthews,  Stanley,  counsel  be 
fore  the  Commission,  226  ;  ar 
gument  in  Florida  case,  231 ; 
at  Wormley  Conference,  269 ; 
gives  certain  assurances  re 
garding  the  policy  of  Grant, 
271;  writes  to  Chamberlain, 
295. 

Maxey,  Samuel  B.,  denounces 
Louisiana  decision,  245. 

Meacham,  Robert,  attempt  to 
assassinate,  59. 

Merchants'  Exchange,  Democra 
tic  national  convention  meets 
in,  31. 

Michigan,  vote  of  thrown  to 
Hayes,  23;  objections  to  re 
ceiving  electoral  votes  of  in 
1837,  179;  in  1877,  250. 

Miller,  J.  N.  T.,  created  an  "elec 
tor"  by  Cronin,  164,  165. 

Miller,  Judge  Samuel  F.,  men 
tioned,  198,  202  ;  to  be  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Electoral  Commis 
sion,  203. 

Mills,  Roger  Q.,  introduces  a  res 
olution  that  the  House  shall 
proceed  to  elect  a  President, 
280. 

Mississippi  plan,  employed  in 
Florida,  58 ;  employed  in 
South  Carolina,  136  ;  mention 
ed,  211. 

Mississippi,  suppression  of  ne 
gro  vote  in,  76;  Mississippi 
Senate  orders  investigation  of 
election  in,  174 ;  would  have 
gone  Republican  in  a  free  elec 
tion,  341. 


360 


INDEX 


Missouri,  objections  made  to  re 
ceiving  electoral  votes  of  in 
1821,  179. 

Moncure  vs.  Dubuclet,  in  case  of 
Louisiana  supreme  court  holds 
that  decisions  of  returning 
board  are  not  subject  to  re 
view,  117. 

Monroe,  negroes  gather  in  to 
vote,  110. 

Morehouse,  a  "selected"  parish, 
90 ;  vote  of,  118 ;  mentioned, 
120. 

Morrisey,  John,  works  for  Til- 
den's  nomination,  30. 

Morrison,  William  R.,  spoken  of 
for  Vice-Presidential  nomina 
tion,  35. 

Morton,  Oliver  P.,  a  dispenser  of 
patronage,  5,  7  ;  candidate  for 
Presidential  nomination,  11 ; 
supporters  of,  13  ;  attacked  by 
New  York  World,  14  ;  follow 
ing  at  Cincinnati,  18 ;  name 
presented  to  convention,  21 ; 
votes  received  by,  22-25; 
brings  in  report  upon  Louis 
iana  election  of  1872,  182  ;  at 
tempts  to  change  method  of 
electing  the  President,  184- 
185 ;  moves  that  Twenty-Sec 
ond  Joint  Rule  shall  not  be  re- 
adopted,  186 ;  appointed  a 
member  of  a  committee,  192  ; 
refuses  to  sign  report  accom 
panying  Electoral  Commission 
bill,  204 ;  opposes  the  bill  in 
the  Senate,  211-214;  accused 
by  Conkling  of  trying  to  pro 
voke  a  deadlock,  212  ;  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Commission,  220; 
mentioned,  225 ;  moves  that 
votes  contained  in  No.  1  of 
the  Louisiana  certificates  be 
counted,  242 ;  would  have 
been  made  President  if  count 
had  not  been  completed,  273  ; 
mentioned,  336. 

Moses,  F.  J.,  elected  governor 
of  South  Carolina,  126 ;  elec 
ted  circuit  judge,  128;  chief 
justice  of  South  Carolina,  149  ; 
illness  of,  292. 

NATION,  The,  comments  on  Bris- 
tow's  supporters,  17;  com 
ments  of  on  Republican  plat 
form,  37 ;  opinion  of  South 
Carolina  Democratic  platform, 


134 ;  suggests  that  a  Repub 
lican  elector  vote  for  Tilden, 
173. 

Nevada,  objection  to  vote  of  an 
elector  of,  250. 

New  England  Society,  dinner  of 
on  Forefather's  Day,  193. 

New,  Jeptha  D.,  speech  on 
Louisiana  decision,  246. 

New  Orleans,  society  of,  81 ; 
riots  of  1855  in,  82;  massacre 
of  1866,  84;  registration  in, 
93  ;  a  goal  of  "visiting  states 
men,"  95  ;  assistant  supervis 
ors  throw  out  polls  in,  113. 

News  and  Courier,  the  Charles 
ton,  commends  Chamberlain, 
128  ;  endeavors  to  induce  Dem 
ocrats  to  support  Chamber 
lain  ;  says  Democrats  can  car 
ry  the  state  only  by  armed 
force,  130 ;  resolution  in  con 
cerning  employment  of  Repub 
licans,  139. 

Nicholls,  F.  T.,  nominated  for 
governor  of  Louisiana,  87 ; 
promises  fair  treatment  for 
negroes,  271 ;  declared  elected, 
294 ;  transmits  resolutions  to 
MacVeagh  Commission,  299 ; 
mentioned,  304. 

Norris,   Tilda,  pardoned,  292. 

North  Carolina,  goes  from 
Hayes  to  Blaine,  24. 

North  Carolinians,  vote  in  South 
Carolina,  146. 

Northrup,  Milton  H.,  quoted,  200. 

Noyes,  E.  F.,  a  "visiting  states 
man"  in  Florida,  64 ;  alleged 
promises  made  by  him,  309- 
310. 

O'BRIEN,  William  J.,  an  irrecon 
cilable,  257,  274. 

"October  States,"  results  of  elec 
tion  in,  42. 

Odell,  W.  H.,  receives  a  major 
ity  of  votes  for  elector  in  Ore 
gon,  162  ;  election  certified  by 
Grover,  163;  helps  to  organize 
the  electoral  college,  164 ; 
votes  for  Hayes,  165. 

Ohio,  Republican  majority  in  at 
October  election,  42. 

Oregon,  chapter  on  contest  in, 
157;  mentioned,  171;  Senate 
committee  instructed  to  inves 
tigate  election  in,  174 ;  men- 


INDEX 


36i 


tioned,  175 ;  case  of  before 
Congress  and  the  Commission, 
250-261;  mentioned,  332,  339, 
340. 

Ottendorfer,  Oswald,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95. 

Ouachita,  a  "selected"  parish, 
90;  outrages  in,  104-110;  vote 
in,  118:  mentioned,  120. 


PACKARD,  S.  B.,  receives  tele 
gram  from  W.  E.  Chandler, 
51 ;  nominated  for  governor  of 
Louisiana,  87;  returning  board 
gives  him  a  majority,  114 ; 
declared  elected,  294  ;  gives  up 
the  contest,  300  ;  title  of,  301- 
302. 

Palmer,  John  M.,  spoken  of  for 
Vice-Presidential  nomination, 
35;  a  "visiting  statesman"  in 
Louisiana,  95. 

Panic   of   1873,    3. 

Parker,  Joel,  name  presented  to 
Democratic  convention,  33 ; 
vote  for,  34-35. 

Patrick,  J.  N.  H.,  takes  a  dic 
tionary  to  Oregon,  160  ;  sends 
cipher  telegram  to  Pelton, 
161 ;  money  furnished  him, 
162. 

Patterson,  John  J.,  a  dispenser 
of  patronage,  5,  7  ;  defeated  by 
Chamberlain  in  contest  for 
position  as  delegate  to  Cin 
cinnati,  129. 

Payne,  Henry  B.,  appointed  a 
member  of  a  House  Commit 
tee,  193 ;  announces  that 
House  Committee  will  not 
agree  to  six- justices  plan,  200  ; 
refuses  to  accept  Davis  as  a 
Democrat,  202 ;  a  member  of 
the  Commission,  220. 

Pelton,  W.  T.,  sends  telegrams 
to  Oregon,  159;  receives  tele 
gram  from  Patrick,  161 ;  men 
tioned,  191  ;  connection  with 
the  cipher  dispatches,  317-323. 

Pendl,eton,  George  H.,  defeated 
by  Hayes,  15. 

Piatt,  Don.,  counsels  assassina 
tion  of  Hayes,  284. 

Pickett,  John  T.,  offers  vote  of 
Louisiana  returning  board  to 
Democrats,  111. 


Pierce,  Edward  L.,  moves 
amendment  to  Republican 
platform,  20. 

Pierce,  Henry  L.,  wishes  to 
throw  out  the  Louisiana  re 
turn,  248. 

Pinkston,  Eliza,  testimony  of, 
105. 

Pinkston,  Henry,  murdered,  106  ; 
was  a  Radical,  107. 

Plaquemine,  frauds  in,   82. 

Platt  vs.  Goode,   67. 

Poppleton,  Early  F.,  inquires 
whether  any  other  returns 
have  been  received  from  Ver 
mont,  274 ;  resolution  intro 
duced  by,  276. 

Post  Trader  frauds,  mentioned, 
39. 

Potter,  Clarkson  N.,  calls  for  a 
Congressional  inquiry,  307 ; 
chairman  of  the  investigating 
committee,  308. 

Potter  Committee,  chapter  on, 
o  05. 

Presidential  Counts,  compiled 
and  published,  199. 

Prohibition  Reform  Party,  con 
vention  of,  38. 

QUAY,  Matthew  S.,  rooms  with 
R.  S.  Mackay,  22. 

RANDALL,  Samuel  J.,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95 ; 
elected  Speaker,  173  ;  mention- 
tioned,  191 ;  announces  mem 
bers  of  a  House  committee, 
193  ;  stand  against  the  Force 
Bill,  258 ;  firmness  of,  276, 
277  ;  mentioned,  281. 

Ransom,  M.  W.,  appointed  a 
member  of  a  Senate  commit 
tee,  193. 

Redfleld,  H.  V.,  explains  the  pur 
poses  of  the  South  Carolina 
Democrats,  139. 

Reed,  Thomas  B.,  a  member  of 
the  Potter  Committee,  308 ; 
mentioned,  324;  cross-exam 
ines  Tilden,  325. 

Reid,  John  C.,  erroneous  state 
ment  concerning,  46  ;  at  Fifth 
Avenue  Hotel,  49-51. 

Reid,  Whitelaw,  testimony  of  re 
garding  cipher  dispatches,  316. 

Resumption  Act,  passed,  6 ;  at 
titude  of  Republican  conven 
tion  toward,  20;  opposition  of 
certain  Democrats  to,  33. 


362 


INDEX 


Richardson's  School  House  Pre 
cinct,  alleged  frauds  at,  73. 

Richmond,  Democratic  conven 
tion  at,  195. 

Rhodes,  Merrimon,  killed  by  a 
rifle  club,  109. 

Rifle  clubs,  activity  of  in  Louis 
iana,  90  ;  outrages  by  in  Oua- 
chita,  105,  107 ;  picket  ap 
proaches  to  Monroe,  110  ;  ac 
tive  in  South  Carolina,  136 ; 
ordered  to  disperse,  143. 

Rivers,  Prince,  complaint  made 
before  against  members  of  a 
militia  company,  131 ;  mal 
treated  by  mob,  132. 

Robbins  Precinct,  Republican 
frauds  at,  147  ;  thrown  out  by 
returning  board,  150. 

Robinson,  Governor  Lucius,  in 
augural  address  of  contains  an 
argument  written  by  Tilden, 
194. 

Ruger,  General  T.  H.,  comman 
der  of  troops  in  South  Caro 
lina,  289. 


SABRE  CLUBS,  formed  by  South 
Carolina  Democrats,  136. 

St.  Patrick's  Hall,  Democratic 
legislature  of  Louisiana  meet 
In,  294. 

Salary  Grab,  3 ;  harped  on  by 
the  Democrats,  39. 

Sanborn  Contract,  3. 

Sargent,  Aaron  A.,  introduces 
resolution  to  elect  a  new  pres 
ident  of  the  Senate,  272. 

Schell,  Augustus,  chairman  Dem 
ocratic  national  committee, 
calls  convention  to  order,  31. 

Schurz,  Carl,  signs  call  for  a 
conference  of  independents, 
15;  writes  the  Address  of  the 
Conference,  16. 

Scott,  R.  K.,  elected  governor  of 
South  Carolina,  126;  Cham 
berlain  refuses  to  commission 
as  Judge,  128. 

Scott,  William  L.,  supports  Til- 
den,  30. 

Seelye,  Prof.  Julius  H.,  attends 
Fifth  Avenue  Conference,  16  ; 
opposes  counting  the  votes  of 
Louisiana,  248. 

"Sewing  machine  circulars"  sent 
out  in  New  Orleans  in  effort 
to  detect  illegal  registration, 
93. 


Sheridan,  General  Philip,  char 
acterizes  Wells  as  a  dishonest 
man,  98  ;  rumor  that  he  would 
be  used  to  bulldoze  New  York. 
187. 

Sherman,  John,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95 ; 
moves  an  investigation  Into 
election  of  1872  in  Louisiana 
and  Arkansas,  181 ;  rumor 
that  he  would  supplant  Ferry, 
187 ;  defends  the  Louisiana 
decision,  245 ;  at  Wormley 
Conference,  269 ;  alleged  to 
have  given  a  written  promise 
of  reward,  312. 

Sherman,  Gen.  W.  T.,  is  directed 
to  hold  troops  in  readiness  to 
quell  disturbances,  43. 

Simpson,  William  D.,  declared 
elected,  291. 

Smith,  Avery,  supports  Tilden, 
30. 

Smith,  Green  Clay,  nominated 
for  president  by  the  Prohi 
bitionists,  38. 

Smith,  John,  burlesque  certifi 
cate  from  Florida  signed  by, 
238. 

Solomon,  Hardy,  alleged  agent 
of  South  Carolina  returning 
board,  320,  324. 

Sons  of  Liberty,  see  Knights  of 
the  Golden  Circle. 

South  Carolina,  Republican  del 
egates  from  vote  for  Blaine, 
24;  troops  sent  to,  44;  chap 
ter  on  contest  in,  122  ;  Investi 
gating  committees  sent  to, 
173-174;  mentioned,  175;  dual 
government  in,  196 ;  case  of 
before  Congress  and  the  Com 
mission,  261-274;  settlement 
in,  287-293,  295-297,  301;  men 
tioned,  329. 

Spofford,  Henry  Martyn,  pleads 
for  publicity  of  returning 
board's  proceedings,  100. 

Springer,  William  M.,  appointed 
a  member  of  a  House  commit 
tee,  193;  mentioned,  198;  con 
siders  Davis  an  Independent, 
201;  an  irreconcilable,  257; 
attempts  to  delay  the  count, 
258,  274;  wild  behavior  of, 
275. 

Stearns,  Marcellus  L.,  telegraphs 
that  a  train  has  been  "ku- 
kluxed,"  54  ;.  issues  a  procla^ 
mation  to  prevent  Georgian* 


INDEX 


363 


from  voting  In  Florida,  63 ; 
admitted  to  sessions  of  Florida 
returning  board,  65  ;  votes  re 
ceived  by,  78. 

Stewart,  G.  T.,  nominated  for 
Vice-President  by  Prohibition 
ists,  38. 

Stoughton,  E.  W.,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95. 

Straight-outers,  desire  to  nomin 
ate  a  candidate  against  Cham 
berlain,  129 ;  are  victorious, 
130,  133. 

Strong,  Judge  William,  to  be  a 
member  of  the  Electoral  Com 
mission,  203  ;  meets  with  other 
judicial  members,  221. 

Sun,  the  New  York,  opposes  re 
sort  to  violence,  170. 

Swayne,  Judge  Noah  H.,  men 
tioned,  198,  202. 

TALLAHASSEE,  troops  ordered  to, 
55. 

Tammany,  opposes  Tilden,  29, 
30. 

Tangipahoa,  supervisors  In  throw 
out  polls,  113. 

Thompson,  Richard  W.,  nomin 
ates  Morton,  21. 

Thurman,  Allen  G.,  defeated  by 
Hayes,  15  ;  spoken  of  for  the 
Presidential  nomination,  27 ; 
opinion  upon  power  of  Con 
gress  to  investigate  choice  of 
electors,  181 ;  appointed  mem 
ber  of  a  committee,  192  ;  sug 
gests  plan  for  an  electoral  tri 
bunal,  202  ;  to  assist  in  com 
pleting  an  address  to  accom 
pany  the  Electoral  Commis 
sion  bill,  203;  delighted  with 
Electoral  Commission  bill, 
204  ;  speaks  in  its  behalf,  213  ; 
a  member  of  the  Commission, 
220 ;  mentioned,  225 ;  votes 
with  Republicans  on  Hum 
phrey's  case,  236;  illness  of, 
254;  credit  due  to,  334;  in 
consistency  of,  336. 

Tidal  wave  of  1874,   3,   4. 

Tidwell,  Charles,  testifies  that 
Henry  Pinkston  was  a  Radi 
cal,  107. 

Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  second  choice 
of  C.  F.  Adams  for  President, 
17  ;  probable  Democratic  nom 
inee  for  President,  26  ;  career 
of,  28-29  ;  suggested  for  Pres 
idency  by  Utica  convention,  30  ; 


name  presented  to  convention, 
33  ;  nominated,  34  ;  how  nom 
ination  of  was  received,  36 ; 
letter  of  acceptance,  38 ;  di 
rects  his  campaign,  39 ;  at 
tacks  on  his  character  and 
political  record,  40-42  ;  returns 
indicate  election  of,  45  ;  Dem 
ocratic  electors  In  Florida  vote 
for,  77  ;  electors  supporting  re 
ceive  majority  of  votes  cast  in 
Louisiana,  94 ;  they  cast  their 
votes  for,  116 ;  defeated  In 
South  Carolina,  151 ;  Demo 
cratic  "electors"  in  South 
Carolina  vote  for,  155;  Cronin 
votes  for,  165;  alleged  plot  to 
cheat  him  out  of  the  Presi 
dency,  168 ;  uncertainty  re 
garding  his  intentions,  191 ; 
sets  forth  his  arguments  in 
the  inaugural  address  of  Gov 
ernor  Robinson,  194  ;  declines 
to  approve  a  compromise  plan, 
199-200;  mentioned,  208;  res 
olutions  drawn  up  by  adopted 
by  the  House,  214  ;  not  a  rev 
olutionist,  285  ;  speech  of  de 
nouncing  the  "fraud;"  307 ; 
wishes  an  investigation,  307 ; 
connection  with  the  cipher  dis 
patches,  320-321,  323-327; 
mentioned,  334,  342. 

Times,  the  New  York,  exposes 
Tweed  Ring,  29;  attacks  Til 
den,  41 ;  events  in  office  of, 
46-47;  editorial  in,  47. 

Trifane,  The  New  York,  pub 
lishes  the  cipher  dispatches, 
316-323. 

Trumbull,  Lyman,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95; 
thinks  Congress  does  not  have 
power  to  go  behind  returns, 
182. 

Tucker,  J.  R.,  an  objector  in  the 
Florida  case,  226 ;  objects  to 
receiving  one  of  the  votes  of 
Michigan,  250. 

Tweed  Ring,  exposed  by  The 
Times,  29  ;  mentioned,  41. 

Twenty-Second  Joint  Rule,  pass 
ed,  180;  mentioned,  182,  212, 
215,  denounced  by  Morton, 
184;  not  readopted  by  the 
Senate,  186. 

Tyner,  James  N.,  examined  by 
Potter  Committee,  322. 


3^4 


INDEX 


UNION  League  Club,  blackballs 
Bristow,  14. 

Union  party,   2. 

Utlca,  Democratic  state  conven 
tion  at  suggests  Tilden  for 
Presidency,  30. 


VAN  BUREN,  Martin,  mentioned, 
28. 


Venezuela  scandal,  harped  on  by 

Democrats,   39. 
Vermont,  bogus  certificate  from, 

274-279. 
Vernon,    returns    from    falsified, 

116. 

Virginia,    attempt    to    make    ob 
jections  to  one  of  the  votes  of, 

279. 
Visiting       statesmen,        journey 

Southward,  56  ;  in  Florida,  65  ; 

in  Louisiana,   95. 
Voorhees,  Daniel,  signs  minority 

report  at  St.    Louis,    33. 


WALLACE,  Lew,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Florida,  64  ;  al 
leged  promises  made  to  McLin, 
310. 

Wallace,  William  A.,  presents 
an  objection  to  counting  the 
votes  of  Louisiana,  244 ; 
speech  on  the  Louisiana  deci 
sion,  245. 

Waite,  Judge  M.  R.,  to  be  ex 
cluded  from  a  proposed  tri 
bunal  for  counting  the  votes, 
197 ;  administers  the  oath  to 
Hayes,  287. 

Walker,  James  B.,  nominated  for 
President  by  American  Na 
tionals,  39. 

Warmoth,  H.  C.,  elected  govern 
or  of  Louisiana,  84  ;  goes  over 
to  Democrats,  86. 

Washington,  troops  ordered  to, 
172  ;  Hewitt  issues  statement 
at,  189,  Watterson  speaks  in 
a  Democratic  meeting  at,  195  ; 
Hayes  reaches,  286 ;  South 
Carolina  claimants  visit,  296  ; 
Potter  Committee  examines 
witnesses  in,  322. 

Washington,  George,  precedent 
established  by  regarding  third 
term,  11. 


Watterson,  Henry,  temporary 
chairman  Democratic  national 
convention,  31;  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Louisiana,  95 ; 
talks  of  a  hundred  thousand 
Kentuckians,  195 ;  speech  of 
on  Louisiana  decision,  247  ;  at 
Wormley  Conference,  269 ; 
told  to  bring  on  his  hundred 
thousand,  282. 

Watts,  John  W.,  ineligile  to  be 
chosen  an  elector,  157 ;  re 
ceives  a  majority  of  votes, 
162;  declared  ineligible  by 
Grover,  163  ;  present  at  meet 
ing  of  the  electoral  college  and 
resigns,  164 ;  reappointed  and 
votes  for  Hayes,  165  ;  question 
of  his  incumbency,  251-253; 
question  of  his  resignation, 
254;  decision  of  Commission 
regarding,  256 ;  mentioned, 
339. 

Weber,  E.  L.,  custodian  of  al 
leged  Sherman  letter,  312. 

Weed,  Smith  M.,  privately  con 
cedes  Republican  victory  in 
South  Carolina,  155;  connec 
tion  with  the  cipher  dispatch 
es,  319-320,  323-324. 

Weekly  Constitution,  the  Mon- 
ticello,  resolutions  in  concern 
ing  employment  of  Republi 
cans,  60. 

Wells,  David  A.,  attends  Fifth 
Avenue  Conference,  15. 

Wells,  J.  Madison,  president  of 
Louisiana  returning  board, 
98  ;  opinion  on  vacancy  in  re 
turning  board,  101 ;  "in  the 
market,"  111  ;  offers  to  count 
in  Democratic  state  ticket  for 
$200,000,  112;  mentioned,  171, 
260. 

West,  Senator  J.  R.,  receives  let 
ter  from  Wells,  111. 

Western  Union  Telegraph  Com 
pany,  delivers  dispatches  to 
Congressional  committees,  315. 

West  Feliciana,  a  "selected" 
parish,  90;  vote  in,  118;  men 
tioned,  120. 

West  Virginia,  goes  Democratic, 
42. 

Wheeler,  William  A.,  nominated 
for  Vice-President  by  Republi 
cans,  25  ;  Florida  electors  cast 
their  votes  for,  76  ;  member  of 
a  Congressional  investigating 
committee,  99  ;  Louisiana  elec- 


INDEX 


365 


tors  vote  for,  114  ;  South  Caro 
lina  electors  vote  for,  155; 
Oregon  electors  vote  for,  165  ; 
Louisiana  votes  counted  for, 
249;  declared  elected,  282. 

Whipper,  W.  J.,  elected  a  cir 
cuit  judge  but  is  refused  a 
commission,  128. 

Whitely,  William  G.,  nominates 
Bayard,  33. 

White  Camelia,  active  in  Louis 
iana,  84. 

White  League,  uprising  of,  86- 
87 ;  members  of  seize  public 
buildings,  294. 

White,  Horace,  signs  call  for 
conference  of  independents,  15. 

White,  Judge  P.  W.,  decides  in 
favor  of  Democratic  electors 
in  Florida,  79. 

Whittemore,  B.  F.,  attempts  to 
prevent  renomination  of 
Chamberlain,  135. 

Willard,  Judge  A.  J.,  associate 
justice  in  South  Carolina,  149  ; 
action  in  Norris  case,  292. 

Willard,  George,  appointed  a 
member  of  a  House  commit 
tee,  193. 

Williams,  Abram,   whipped,    109. 

Williams,  Charles  G.,  replies  to 
Blackburn,  280. 

Williams,  James  D.,  nominates 
Hendricks,  33. 


Wiltz,  Louis  A.,  nominated  for 
lieutenant-governor  of  Louisi 
ana,  87 ;  declared  elected  by 
Democrats,  294. 

Wisconsin,  objections  to  receiv 
ing  electoral  votes  of  in  1877, 
279. 

Wood,  Fernando,  wishes  to  im 
peach  Grant,  176  ;  opposes  fil 
ibustering,  274 ;  denounced  as 
the  "high  priest  of  the  Re 
publican  party,"  280. 

Woodford,  Stewart  L.,  candi 
date  for  Vice-Presidential 
nomination,  25. 

Woodworth,  Laurin  D.,  quoted, 
260. 

Wooley,  C.  W.,  a  "visiting 
statesman"  in  Florida,  65 ; 
connection  with  the  cipher  dis 
patches,  317,  318. 

Woolsey,  Theodore,  signs  a  call 
for  conference  of  indepen 
dents,  15. 

World,  the  New  York,  incen 
diary  statements,  169;  advis 
es  impeachment  of  Grant,  175. 

Wormley  Conference,  269  ;  men 
tioned,  277. 

Wright,  Judge  J.  J.,  associate 
justice  in  South  Caroina,  149  ; 
action  in  Norris  case,  292. 


DEPARTMENT 

in  Librar 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 

HOME  USE 

4 


ALL  bUUKS  MAY  BE  RtLALLbD  AFTER  7  DAYS 

6  month  ,^m0nth  lo,ans  ™y  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

ith  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 
and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date    ' 

DUE   AS  STAMPED   BELOW 


1 8  1977 


DISCC 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA   94720 


LD  21A-50m-8  '61 
(Cl795slO)476B 


.General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkelev 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


